I can't wait to get back to the days of changing each light bulb in my house a couple of times each year.
I've typically found that they either fail quickly or last a really long time...still, avoiding CFLs though and going straight to LEDs. I still buy incandescent though when I can for lamps, etc as they just work better.
We have some CFLs that we got from Sam's Club for $0.99 for a pack of 10 or so; not a big fan and they cause a lot of problems, especially with lamp shades that expect a certain bulb size, or if one of the kids knocks it over and breaks the bulb (releasing the mercury); LEDs and incandescent aren't a problem that way.
There's no common test for HPV, and a very large percentage of people have some strain of it. So let's say you have a daughter, who is magically pure and never thinks about sex but is eventually going to grow up and marry a man, and lose her virginity in order to produce children. There's a 1/3 chance that the guy has HPV and doesn't know it.
Only if he's been promiscuous.
There's a significant chance that the HPV causes cervical cancer.
Only if they continue to be promiscuous after contracting HPV...it takes multiple strains to be an issue.
So even in this optimal scenario, not vaccinating your daughter is the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with your daughter's health. In real-life scenarios where teenagers spend most of their free time making out with each other (HPV is transmitted by kissing too), she's guaranteed to be exposed to HPV unless all her friends were vaccinated.
Most strains of HPV are benign, and the body normally flushes them out quite quickly. HPV only becomes an issue when multiple incompatible strains are present at the same time. There's a reason that a vast majority of the population has been exposed to HPV but only an extremely small percentage are suffering any kind of side-effects - a percentage that is smaller than the percentage of people suffering side-effects from the supposed cure.
HPV is most commonly transmitted sexually, but can be transmitted through close skin-skin contact as well. HPV has also been linked to many other cancers, including penile cancer. It does seem like you and your wife are at extremely low risk for contracting HPV, so perhaps the vaccine isn't needed for either of you. That being said, as a public health recommendation, the HPV vaccine is good for most people, and should likely be routinely recommended.
There was an article out recently that 1/3rd of medical doctors do not recommend it as they have concerns about it. It's certainly far from being one of the routinely accepted vaccines (if you can really call it one since it is not a normal vaccine).
See, here's the thing: In order to get the benefit of the HPV vaccine, you have to get it when you are young, not so that you can get it before sexual activity, but because the immune system is still developing at that time, and can produce the most effective and continuing response to HPV. There is a non-zero chance that you and your wife will get HPV. All it takes a divorce, an affair or untimely death to cause new couplings and the risk is there.
Except Gardasil is not a vaccine in the traditional sense and has little to do with the immune system. From my father-in-law (an MD) it's more akin to genetic manipulation than a vaccine, and people either have no side-effects or respond horribly to it - even to the point of death. *He* does not recommend it.
As to the GP, I agree with them. There's no point in giving kids a lifestyle drug which Gardasil absolutely certainly is and the dangers of Gardasil do *not* outweigh the risks - for HPV to be an issue you must be exposed to multiple strains that conflict with each other while infected (e.g multiple sexual partners in short order). If the kids want to have it when they turn 18 and want to pay for it, fine - that's *their* choice. But I'll do as the GP did as well.
Yeah so which one do you think is a better overall experience. I tried Zimbra it was shit, and at that time it was considered the best Exchange alternative.
Personally, I don't know. OpenExchange came out of HP's effort for an Exchange replacement and has been around for over a decade. (I first found it in the last 1990's). All three have support services available - that's Zimbra's business model in fact.
and allow you to use whatever part you find best (dovecot+postfix vs exim vs etc, postgressql vs mysql vs oracle vs etc, etc) underneath (at least, Kolab and Zimbra).
FrankenMail! Just what every organisation loves, a custom built cobbled together solution that no-one knows how to support.
No, it's not. FrankenMail would be taking random solutions to make what you want. Not well documented solutions that were designed to work together, which is the case for the various solutions I listed - the documentation is excellent for all of them.
I *never* recommend MS Exchange or Outlook as a solution.
No because you care more about your religion than your customers requirements. Exchange isn't for everyone, but it does do the job most of the time, which is why most businesses use it.
I don't recommend Outlook or Exchange because they are (a) security nightmares, and (b) costly and (c) bloated tools that divert resources away from solving the business's problems.
The most basic installation of dovecot+postfix or exim supports 10,000 users and no SQL server is needed. In fact, even at 100,000 users I'm not sure a SQL server is necessary...even in a cluster of them.
Where did you get the idea that you need SQL for Exchange?
Does it need MS SQL Server? No, not for *small* installations. But once you want to start scaling it - once you need more than one Exchange instance - you do as it serves as the backend storage. From where? From the numerous Exchange installations I'm familiar with.
Yes you should have a competent admin, but then you should for 50 or 100 users too. There's nothing miraculous about 1000 users or 10,000 users. As I noted, other solutions have no issue with it and scale far easier on hardware with lower hardware specs.
The point is that once you get to 1000 users, your company is of a size that it doesn't quibble over spending a few dollars to make things run properly.
If you run a shop with over a 1000 users, the words "lower hardware specs" shouldn't really be in your vocabulary.
And you missed the point.
The point being, a non-Exchange solution can provide the same functionality at a cheaper cost to the organization based on the hardware requirements alone. Give it the same hardware (for whatever reason) and it'll scale well beyond Exchange.
Example: Outlook and even Exchange can only support 100 email filter rules by default because that's all the memory allows for. If you users need more, you have to increase their profile memory limits to allow for more (server-side for Exchange; Outlook has no such options).
Is this a real problem? I'm sure someone out there must have come across it, but over 100 rules? Who needs more than 100 rules?
Anyone that has a serious e-mail usage will need a lot of rules. So yes, it is a problem. I learned it was due to *memory* requirements after talking with some Exchange support staff because by default on a few kilobytes of memory are provided to a user for their rule-set.
Really? I run a free solution that could easily outdo that. License is $0; and it can run on any $1200 server without issue.
This is the problem with the FOSS logic. Enterprises will quite happily pay for stuff that works, and is backed by reputable support contract. When you flesh that out, you can't satisfy that requirement with your home brew solution.
Sure you can. There's many places that will provide a support contract for the various other mail solutions other there. Or you can put the money into your own staff to support it. That's the beauty of open source - you get the choice.
Support? Near $0 because it Just Works and doesn't need hand-holding.
So you work for free? Who adds new users? Removes users? Maintains the backups? Does DR testing? When your $1200 shitbox blows a PSU, at 2am who is called in to fix that?
That shit might fly at Mom and Pop shop or in your basement, but any business that makes money isn't going to run the risk of free stuff breaking and there being only one guy who knows how it all hangs together.
No. Any good business will be looking at how to maintain itself optimally. If there's something that "just works" and needs minimum maintenance, then it's better for the bottom line. The cost of a "just works" open source solution is far lower than the cost for a "just works" Exchange (or Microsoft) solution. For instance, with Microsoft you have (a) the cost of the hardware, (b) the cost of Windows with associated CAL licenses, and (c) the cost of Exchange and associated CAL licenses. With an open source solution, you have (a) the cost of the hardware, and (b) the cost of distribution support contract (see Ubuntu, Red Hat, SuSe, among others); often the cost o
If you're only running a very small business (50 employees, even then probably smaller than that), then sure - Exchange can be that simple to administer. Any real Exchange installation is going to consist of a cluster of Exchange Servers backed up by a cluster of MS SQL Servers, all connected to the AD , and none of which are going to be that simple to install or keep running.
The most basic install of Exchange can easily support 1000 users using the default next, next install on a single box. Maintenance consists of ensuring it has regular backups. It really is that simple (I was an Exchange Admin in a previous life and don't recall ever needing SQL for anything)
The most basic installation of dovecot+postfix or exim supports 10,000 users and no SQL server is needed. In fact, even at 100,000 users I'm not sure a SQL server is necessary...even in a cluster of them.
If you have more than 1000 users then you should also have an admin that knows how to deal with greater scale
Yes you should have a competent admin, but then you should for 50 or 100 users too. There's nothing miraculous about 1000 users or 10,000 users. As I noted, other solutions have no issue with it and scale far easier on hardware with lower hardware specs.
And after you have all that setup, then you have to craft in all the little extras for your users to ensure they get the functionality they want.
What are you talking about exactly? The only thing we usually did was show people how to set up their signature. Everything works out of the box.
Example: Outlook and even Exchange can only support 100 email filter rules by default because that's all the memory allows for. If you users need more, you have to increase their profile memory limits to allow for more (server-side for Exchange; Outlook has no such options).
None of those servers are going to be cheap either as the requirements to run it put you towards the more beefy end of servers.
Low end solution is a standard Dell/HP server for $5k, Exchange license for about $4k (depending on user licenses). I guarantee you that any free solution will cost you more than that in labour, support, lost productivity and outages.
Really? I run a free solution that could easily outdo that. License is $0; and it can run on any $1200 server without issue. Support? Near $0 because it Just Works and doesn't need hand-holding.
Well give us your solution and we'll compare. I won't hold my breath, I've had dozens of these discussion and they always end the same way. FOSS nerds picks Exchange to bits, but refuses to offer an alternate for comparison. Your lack of a suggested alternative speaks louder than anything else...
What? Like Kolab, or Zimbra, or OpenExchange, or... yeah there's other things out there. Are they as integrated as Exchange+Outlook? No, but they do offer the same functionality and are a heck of a lot less of a PITA to administer since they actually build on standards to do their work, and allow you to use whatever part you find best (dovecot+postfix vs exim vs etc, postgressql vs mysql vs oracle vs etc, etc) underneath (at least, Kolab and Zimbra).
My own email server running dovecot+postfix was very quick to setup; the majority of the time configuring it was more getting settings in place to manage DNSSEC, SPF, etc - and even that was short-order. A cluster of them wouldn't be much more. Can't say the same for Exchange (which yes I've dealt with in the past). I *never* recommend MS Exchange or Outlook as a solution.
So, to those that say "no other single thing can replace MS Exchange"? MS Exchange itself is a suite of applications so why insist on replacing many with one?
Because one "Suite" that can be installed by clicking next, next, finish (and maybe some checkboxes), and is supported as a unit by the publisher, is whole lot different from 'Hey I cobbled together 50 different things that sort of do something similar but not quite, and good luck getting enterprise support for it, and pray that upgrading one package in that mix doesn't break the entire thing'.
That's why.
If you're only running a very small business (50 employees, even then probably smaller than that), then sure - Exchange can be that simple to administer. Any real Exchange installation is going to consist of a cluster of Exchange Servers backed up by a cluster of MS SQL Servers, all connected to the AD , and none of which are going to be that simple to install or keep running. And after you have all that setup, then you have to craft in all the little extras for your users to ensure they get the functionality they want. None of those servers are going to be cheap either as the requirements to run it put you towards the more beefy end of servers.
FYI - there's a reason why MS failed to migrate Hotmail from BSD to Windows the first time they tried it - between Windows just not being up to snuff and the resources required by Exchange, etc....it was just too much. (They did eventually manage to migrate it but not after significant work on all the products involved.)
Please don't. It's hard to think of a more bloated resource hog, far too much for what it is supposed to do, and yet still lacking in basic features in other areas.
I despise Exchange, all the more because I have been so long forced to administer it (since the Exchange 97 days).
As a user, I newer appreciated Exchange+Outlook before I moved to a different company that use Google Apps instead. There might be better alternatives than both of them, but right now I miss Exchange+Outlook so f'ing much.
I used Outlook from 1997 (Outlook 97) through 2008 (Outlook 2003 or so). I was a heavy user. I moved to Thunderbird, and can honestly say that I do not miss Outlook or Exchange or the multitude of problems that they caused. I would, however, be very hard pressed to be able to replace Thunderbird with something else that does everything I need it to do.
All I am saying is that if you make a job easier to the point where it is actually easier (i.e.not just perception), that is a good thing. This is in contrast to the suggestion that making jobs easier is not good, because it lowers wages.
And yes, whether you can *actually* make job X easier is always an open question. If you can only make Job X seem easier (but not actually easier) then you shouldn't do that because having bad information just wastes resources (e.g. time, money, etc).
I am not making any claims about how hard or easy or how much skill is required to be a windows admin. All I am asking is this:
Scenario A: It requires 10 highly skilled admins to do job X.
Scenario B: It requires 2 highly skilled admins and 8 low skilled admins to do job X.
Isn't Scenario B better? The person I originally responded to seemed to be suggesting that Scenario A was better because it meant 10 people were highly paid rather than just 2.
I would say it depends on what X is.
My primary point was that X being Microsoft Exchange or any of the other big tools that Microsoft markets towards Scenario B is ripe for problems since those low skilled admins will create a lot of problems that fewer higher skilled admins would have prevented.
And the fact that you're comparing 10 high skilled versus 2 high skilled plus 8 lower skilled also highlights the problem because in reality the comparison would more likely be:
5 high skilled admins to do job X.
1 high skilled admins and 40 low skilled admins to do job X.
1 good high skilled admin is usually worth at least 10 low skilled admins.
The other problem with your scenario is that the low skilled admins work at the behest of the high skilled admin; and they'll usually be LOWER skilled than they should be (e.g fresh off the certificate farm or out of school) so they're really worth even less.
You can often see this in Windows versus Unix admins where a single high skilled Windows admin will only administer a handful (typically 5, though less than 10) boxes at a time, while a typical Unix/Linux admin will be administering 100+. So again, it depends on what X is.
The sad thing is that management will often use the argument you use to "reduce costs" - but in the end cost themselves more because of the foobars of the lower skilled admins or because they changed models from a cheaper model with more highly skilled admins (e.g 5 high skilled Unix Admins with 500 servers) to a "cheaper" model with lower skilled admins (e.g 2 high skilled Windows Admin and 6 low skilled Windows Admin with 40 servers that all cost more than the 500 servers) but they're "saving" on human costs (not really, but that's how they sell it).
Or take the recent off-shoring of technical services (such as Help Desk) where a small team in the US (or Canada or anywhere in Europe) got replaced by a larger and cheaper team in India. They've discovered that it's not really advantageous to do so - it really does cost more to offshore than keep local people because of all the mistakes the cheaper workers will make - whether cultural differences leading miscommunication or other things of similar nature, ultimately costing customers which makes dents in the bottom lines.
So it really does depend on what X is and what you're trying to do with it or whether you're trying to replace Y with it, and how all the numbers work out. You'll often be surprised to find that what you thought was a cheaper route isn't.
Well it seems that the scenario you are talking about is the one where the software doesn't allow a low-skilled person to do the job.
As in MS Exchange or any of their other business services...services that are often run by low skilled administrators. Though in the case of MS Exchange, I know of one instance in particular where even the high skilled admins couldn't fix it and it took a week for MS to fix the issue.
If MS made their software easy enough to use that a low skilled person can do it, isn't that a good thing?
Only for Microsoft and their Partner when stuff breaks and you have to bring in experts because it's really foobar'd up the wazoo, so much so that only hands-on work by MS can solve the problem - on and it comes at really high billing rates too.
If you arent uploading to GitHub, you are an Alchemist, not a Scientist.
I'm neither an Alchemist nor a Scientist in writing my code. I'm more of an Engineer.
An Alchemist does something repetitively and happens upon the same results more by chance than anything else.
A Scientist does better by making it more predictable, but there is little real structure or design to the work, leading to a lot of errors and lots of rework.
An Engineer designs, architects, and makes reproducible work with low errors with little rework.
False positives are not a problem if you deal with them rationally. If a woman is murdered, and the DNA matches one in a million, then in a country of 300 million, there will be 300 matches, and 299 false positives. But if only one lives in the same city, and it happens to be her ex-boyfriend, then the DNA match is useful information.
Except in this case that does not work since locality doesn't matter for the Internet or software. Also many good groups establish various coding standards so many authors will now become one; some individuality may survive based on logic structure, but that would get mitigated quickly by group reviews and code updates in response.
If you are refering to the odd curve in the US interstate system, they are placed there on purpose to keep the driver alert. The concern when laying out the interstate system was that long straight highways would lead to fatigue and accidents, so the curves were inserted as an intentional feature.
While much of the discussion has been around the Interstate system, I'm not referring to simply the Interstate System, but all roads. And per the "odd curve" I'm referring to things like side-roads having a small curve in them (
With regards to driving as safe as people feel physically safe, that is false. Here is a test to try. Take a stretch of highway where people regularly drive over the speed limit. Now park a police car on the shoulder -- people will slow down, even though their physical safety has not changed. While one does take into account how safe they feel while driving, ie. slowing down in the rain. When talking about driving over the speed limit, it has been shown that lack of enforcement of the speed limit is the major factor. In short, it's not that people drive as fast as they think safe, but as fast as they think they can get away with.
Presence of an officer may have a small impact; however, that will only be for the short distance around the officer. Left alone, people will typically follow what the psychology of the road itself will mentally suggest to them. This is based on the curves, stop signs, traffic lights, distances between such things, how many lanes there are, etc.
For instance, adding a second lane each way bumps up the speed that people think they should be going - enforcement of the limit doesn't change that psychological effect; it's better to take the psychological effect into account when designing the road or changes to it as you can actually make everyone slow down (or speed up) regardless of the presence of an officer.
You just identified the real issue "following too closely behind the vehicle in front of you" perhaps if there was a legislative/punitive or technological solution to this, issues relating to "traffic waves" would be solved.
Socrates figured people should ask questions about *everything*. We have a world where people get a glance at something, make up some stuff, and then stop asking questions about it and presume anyone who disagrees with them is a moron; on the other end, someone gets a certification telling us they know about something, so we stop asking questions and assume anyone who disagrees with *them* is a moron. Socrates wanted us to question ourselves *and* the experts, to find out why the experts disagree with us, and then to decide if the reason for disagreement was valid, or if we could even assess it with the information we had. Do that enough and you'll start realizing the experts are wrong--they're always wrong, just less-wrong than all of their predecessors.
Socrates lived in a time when the sum total of human knowledge was a little fraction of what we know today, and this it was a lot easier to get up to the state of the art in several fields. Sure, we should question experts, but on average, the risk of rationalising our snap judgement with half-understood facts and simplified sound bites is not insignificant. The expert is not always right, but he usually comes closer to the truth than a non-expert.
Really? Hmm...I'd beg to differ. Why? Well, there's quite a few things from that time that we still CANNOT figure out. For instance, how could the pyramids and numerous other structures so perfectly aligned (
No, there was an intelligence and knowledge that in many respect surpassed what we know today. Sure we have a good understanding of biology, engineering, etc; but much of what we know comes from the Greeks, Romans, and Chinese; much of which was been rediscovered. Probably about the only way in which we are more advanced is in our knowledge and use of high tech equipment to make CPUs and other stuff - but we do so using more rudimentary methods of making that stuff than the Romans and Greeks did.
IOW, there's very strong evidence that the knowledge in the ancient world was a lot greater than we have today. There was just a lot that was lost. After all, how long are our buildings and structures lasting for? There's Roman Roads that are still in service while ours have to be maintained every year; aquaducts that lasted as long as water flowed through them, and even then there's great sections of them that have been standing for centuries. The buildings today won't last that long - the materials break down too quickly.
So...everyone? The issue here is that people tend to drive as fast or as slow as the road allows, normally it's the common law speed limit. Humans can usually adjust to this, robots with strict rules can't.
That is incorrect. People tend to drive as fast or as slow as enforcement of the speed limit allows. If authorities start enforcing the speed limit, the speed driven will decrease. Since there is no real penalty to speeding, people speed.
Not quite.
There's been quite a few studies that have shown that roads have a psychology behind them, and that people will tend to drive more towards the speed limit that the road psychologically feels like it should be. You can make the speed limit whatever you want, but if people's natural instinct is that it should be faster then they will go faster. You can enforce a slower speed limit too, but that will just result in more tickets, not people going slower.
So if you ever wonder why there's an odd curve in an otherwise straight road...it's because they're trying to play to the psychology of the road to get people to naturally slow down. Fewer tickets, fewer accidents, fewer problems all around.
That said, this is something that's really only come up in the last 15-20 years so there are very few places that really take this into account.
In the UK you can be pulled-over if you are driving in the middle lane and there is no one in the outer lane (left-lane in UK, right-lane in US).
You can be in the US too. And many states of laws that if you are not passing something within a certain distance (3 miles for Pennsylvania) then you better move over to the right lane.
I don't know who's telling you that "a lot of applications use a cut and paste prime", but they're probably wrong. Every standard application and library in wide use generates new primes every time it generates a new key. If it didn't, every key it generated would be the same, and this would be caught out fast.
Well...that OpenSSL bug in Debian (due to a patch in the Debian version of OpenSSL to "harden" OpenSSL) that caused all the primes to be the same a few years back took over a year to come to the surface. So I wouldn't say it would be "caught out fast".
Keep in mind that the court generally won't restrict the police if the technology is generally available. So if a technology with surveillance capabilities is commonly used by the general populace, then you can't usually prevent the state from employing it. Besides, think about it: the idea that someone driving the highway can link cars, by tag, to individuals and their home address is kind of creepy. Automated stalking.
Kind of...the law can limit government (police) in that nature, but government will of course be reluctant to do so. However, you failed to miss my point - it's not the technology itself that is the problem, it's what will be done with the data that is the problem.
The issue is not how much one person can collect - it'll be fairly localized. However, if government were allowed to do it then you'd have things like the NSA data collection going on - world-wide with all kinds of privacy implications, and THAT is the problem.
Sadly, very few citizens feel this way. They have this strange idea that police are basically our parents and we need permission to do anything.
That's the great liberal/progressive/socialist delusion - that the state knows better than the individual - and runs very strongly in the Democrat party. It's also why we have ObamaCare (for better or worse) - because the Democrats took that view and said "we know better, so we're going to pass this no matter what anyone says".
Slashdot Mirror
I can't wait to get back to the days of changing each light bulb in my house a couple of times each year.
I've typically found that they either fail quickly or last a really long time...still, avoiding CFLs though and going straight to LEDs. I still buy incandescent though when I can for lamps, etc as they just work better.
We have some CFLs that we got from Sam's Club for $0.99 for a pack of 10 or so; not a big fan and they cause a lot of problems, especially with lamp shades that expect a certain bulb size, or if one of the kids knocks it over and breaks the bulb (releasing the mercury); LEDs and incandescent aren't a problem that way.
There's no common test for HPV, and a very large percentage of people have some strain of it. So let's say you have a daughter, who is magically pure and never thinks about sex but is eventually going to grow up and marry a man, and lose her virginity in order to produce children. There's a 1/3 chance that the guy has HPV and doesn't know it.
Only if he's been promiscuous.
There's a significant chance that the HPV causes cervical cancer.
Only if they continue to be promiscuous after contracting HPV...it takes multiple strains to be an issue.
So even in this optimal scenario, not vaccinating your daughter is the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with your daughter's health. In real-life scenarios where teenagers spend most of their free time making out with each other (HPV is transmitted by kissing too), she's guaranteed to be exposed to HPV unless all her friends were vaccinated.
Most strains of HPV are benign, and the body normally flushes them out quite quickly. HPV only becomes an issue when multiple incompatible strains are present at the same time. There's a reason that a vast majority of the population has been exposed to HPV but only an extremely small percentage are suffering any kind of side-effects - a percentage that is smaller than the percentage of people suffering side-effects from the supposed cure.
HPV is most commonly transmitted sexually, but can be transmitted through close skin-skin contact as well. HPV has also been linked to many other cancers, including penile cancer. It does seem like you and your wife are at extremely low risk for contracting HPV, so perhaps the vaccine isn't needed for either of you. That being said, as a public health recommendation, the HPV vaccine is good for most people, and should likely be routinely recommended.
There was an article out recently that 1/3rd of medical doctors do not recommend it as they have concerns about it. It's certainly far from being one of the routinely accepted vaccines (if you can really call it one since it is not a normal vaccine).
See, here's the thing: In order to get the benefit of the HPV vaccine, you have to get it when you are young, not so that you can get it before sexual activity, but because the immune system is still developing at that time, and can produce the most effective and continuing response to HPV. There is a non-zero chance that you and your wife will get HPV. All it takes a divorce, an affair or untimely death to cause new couplings and the risk is there.
Except Gardasil is not a vaccine in the traditional sense and has little to do with the immune system. From my father-in-law (an MD) it's more akin to genetic manipulation than a vaccine, and people either have no side-effects or respond horribly to it - even to the point of death. *He* does not recommend it.
As to the GP, I agree with them. There's no point in giving kids a lifestyle drug which Gardasil absolutely certainly is and the dangers of Gardasil do *not* outweigh the risks - for HPV to be an issue you must be exposed to multiple strains that conflict with each other while infected (e.g multiple sexual partners in short order). If the kids want to have it when they turn 18 and want to pay for it, fine - that's *their* choice. But I'll do as the GP did as well.
What? Like Kolab, or Zimbra, or OpenExchange,
Yeah so which one do you think is a better overall experience. I tried Zimbra it was shit, and at that time it was considered the best Exchange alternative.
Personally, I don't know. OpenExchange came out of HP's effort for an Exchange replacement and has been around for over a decade. (I first found it in the last 1990's). All three have support services available - that's Zimbra's business model in fact.
and allow you to use whatever part you find best (dovecot+postfix vs exim vs etc, postgressql vs mysql vs oracle vs etc, etc) underneath (at least, Kolab and Zimbra).
FrankenMail! Just what every organisation loves, a custom built cobbled together solution that no-one knows how to support.
No, it's not. FrankenMail would be taking random solutions to make what you want. Not well documented solutions that were designed to work together, which is the case for the various solutions I listed - the documentation is excellent for all of them.
I *never* recommend MS Exchange or Outlook as a solution.
No because you care more about your religion than your customers requirements. Exchange isn't for everyone, but it does do the job most of the time, which is why most businesses use it.
I don't recommend Outlook or Exchange because they are (a) security nightmares, and (b) costly and (c) bloated tools that divert resources away from solving the business's problems.
The most basic installation of dovecot+postfix or exim supports 10,000 users and no SQL server is needed. In fact, even at 100,000 users I'm not sure a SQL server is necessary...even in a cluster of them.
Where did you get the idea that you need SQL for Exchange?
Does it need MS SQL Server? No, not for *small* installations. But once you want to start scaling it - once you need more than one Exchange instance - you do as it serves as the backend storage. From where? From the numerous Exchange installations I'm familiar with.
Yes you should have a competent admin, but then you should for 50 or 100 users too. There's nothing miraculous about 1000 users or 10,000 users. As I noted, other solutions have no issue with it and scale far easier on hardware with lower hardware specs.
The point is that once you get to 1000 users, your company is of a size that it doesn't quibble over spending a few dollars to make things run properly. If you run a shop with over a 1000 users, the words "lower hardware specs" shouldn't really be in your vocabulary.
And you missed the point.
The point being, a non-Exchange solution can provide the same functionality at a cheaper cost to the organization based on the hardware requirements alone. Give it the same hardware (for whatever reason) and it'll scale well beyond Exchange.
Example: Outlook and even Exchange can only support 100 email filter rules by default because that's all the memory allows for. If you users need more, you have to increase their profile memory limits to allow for more (server-side for Exchange; Outlook has no such options).
Is this a real problem? I'm sure someone out there must have come across it, but over 100 rules? Who needs more than 100 rules?
Anyone that has a serious e-mail usage will need a lot of rules. So yes, it is a problem. I learned it was due to *memory* requirements after talking with some Exchange support staff because by default on a few kilobytes of memory are provided to a user for their rule-set.
Really? I run a free solution that could easily outdo that. License is $0; and it can run on any $1200 server without issue.
This is the problem with the FOSS logic. Enterprises will quite happily pay for stuff that works, and is backed by reputable support contract. When you flesh that out, you can't satisfy that requirement with your home brew solution.
Sure you can. There's many places that will provide a support contract for the various other mail solutions other there. Or you can put the money into your own staff to support it. That's the beauty of open source - you get the choice.
Support? Near $0 because it Just Works and doesn't need hand-holding.
So you work for free? Who adds new users? Removes users? Maintains the backups? Does DR testing? When your $1200 shitbox blows a PSU, at 2am who is called in to fix that? That shit might fly at Mom and Pop shop or in your basement, but any business that makes money isn't going to run the risk of free stuff breaking and there being only one guy who knows how it all hangs together.
No. Any good business will be looking at how to maintain itself optimally. If there's something that "just works" and needs minimum maintenance, then it's better for the bottom line. The cost of a "just works" open source solution is far lower than the cost for a "just works" Exchange (or Microsoft) solution. For instance, with Microsoft you have (a) the cost of the hardware, (b) the cost of Windows with associated CAL licenses, and (c) the cost of Exchange and associated CAL licenses. With an open source solution, you have (a) the cost of the hardware, and (b) the cost of distribution support contract (see Ubuntu, Red Hat, SuSe, among others); often the cost o
If you're only running a very small business (50 employees, even then probably smaller than that), then sure - Exchange can be that simple to administer. Any real Exchange installation is going to consist of a cluster of Exchange Servers backed up by a cluster of MS SQL Servers, all connected to the AD , and none of which are going to be that simple to install or keep running.
The most basic install of Exchange can easily support 1000 users using the default next, next install on a single box. Maintenance consists of ensuring it has regular backups. It really is that simple (I was an Exchange Admin in a previous life and don't recall ever needing SQL for anything)
The most basic installation of dovecot+postfix or exim supports 10,000 users and no SQL server is needed. In fact, even at 100,000 users I'm not sure a SQL server is necessary...even in a cluster of them.
If you have more than 1000 users then you should also have an admin that knows how to deal with greater scale
Yes you should have a competent admin, but then you should for 50 or 100 users too. There's nothing miraculous about 1000 users or 10,000 users. As I noted, other solutions have no issue with it and scale far easier on hardware with lower hardware specs.
And after you have all that setup, then you have to craft in all the little extras for your users to ensure they get the functionality they want.
What are you talking about exactly? The only thing we usually did was show people how to set up their signature. Everything works out of the box.
Example: Outlook and even Exchange can only support 100 email filter rules by default because that's all the memory allows for. If you users need more, you have to increase their profile memory limits to allow for more (server-side for Exchange; Outlook has no such options).
None of those servers are going to be cheap either as the requirements to run it put you towards the more beefy end of servers.
Low end solution is a standard Dell/HP server for $5k, Exchange license for about $4k (depending on user licenses). I guarantee you that any free solution will cost you more than that in labour, support, lost productivity and outages.
Really? I run a free solution that could easily outdo that. License is $0; and it can run on any $1200 server without issue. Support? Near $0 because it Just Works and doesn't need hand-holding.
Well give us your solution and we'll compare. I won't hold my breath, I've had dozens of these discussion and they always end the same way. FOSS nerds picks Exchange to bits, but refuses to offer an alternate for comparison. Your lack of a suggested alternative speaks louder than anything else...
What? Like Kolab, or Zimbra, or OpenExchange, or... yeah there's other things out there. Are they as integrated as Exchange+Outlook? No, but they do offer the same functionality and are a heck of a lot less of a PITA to administer since they actually build on standards to do their work, and allow you to use whatever part you find best (dovecot+postfix vs exim vs etc, postgressql vs mysql vs oracle vs etc, etc) underneath (at least, Kolab and Zimbra).
My own email server running dovecot+postfix was very quick to setup; the majority of the time configuring it was more getting settings in place to manage DNSSEC, SPF, etc - and even that was short-order. A cluster of them wouldn't be much more. Can't say the same for Exchange (which yes I've dealt with in the past). I *never* recommend MS Exchange or Outlook as a solution.
So, to those that say "no other single thing can replace MS Exchange"? MS Exchange itself is a suite of applications so why insist on replacing many with one?
Because one "Suite" that can be installed by clicking next, next, finish (and maybe some checkboxes), and is supported as a unit by the publisher, is whole lot different from 'Hey I cobbled together 50 different things that sort of do something similar but not quite, and good luck getting enterprise support for it, and pray that upgrading one package in that mix doesn't break the entire thing'. That's why.
If you're only running a very small business (50 employees, even then probably smaller than that), then sure - Exchange can be that simple to administer. Any real Exchange installation is going to consist of a cluster of Exchange Servers backed up by a cluster of MS SQL Servers, all connected to the AD , and none of which are going to be that simple to install or keep running. And after you have all that setup, then you have to craft in all the little extras for your users to ensure they get the functionality they want. None of those servers are going to be cheap either as the requirements to run it put you towards the more beefy end of servers. FYI - there's a reason why MS failed to migrate Hotmail from BSD to Windows the first time they tried it - between Windows just not being up to snuff and the resources required by Exchange, etc....it was just too much. (They did eventually manage to migrate it but not after significant work on all the products involved.)
Please don't. It's hard to think of a more bloated resource hog, far too much for what it is supposed to do, and yet still lacking in basic features in other areas.
I despise Exchange, all the more because I have been so long forced to administer it (since the Exchange 97 days).
As a user, I newer appreciated Exchange+Outlook before I moved to a different company that use Google Apps instead. There might be better alternatives than both of them, but right now I miss Exchange+Outlook so f'ing much.
I used Outlook from 1997 (Outlook 97) through 2008 (Outlook 2003 or so). I was a heavy user. I moved to Thunderbird, and can honestly say that I do not miss Outlook or Exchange or the multitude of problems that they caused. I would, however, be very hard pressed to be able to replace Thunderbird with something else that does everything I need it to do.
All I am saying is that if you make a job easier to the point where it is actually easier (i.e.not just perception), that is a good thing. This is in contrast to the suggestion that making jobs easier is not good, because it lowers wages.
And yes, whether you can *actually* make job X easier is always an open question. If you can only make Job X seem easier (but not actually easier) then you shouldn't do that because having bad information just wastes resources (e.g. time, money, etc).
Agreed.
I am not making any claims about how hard or easy or how much skill is required to be a windows admin. All I am asking is this:
Scenario A: It requires 10 highly skilled admins to do job X.
Scenario B: It requires 2 highly skilled admins and 8 low skilled admins to do job X.
Isn't Scenario B better? The person I originally responded to seemed to be suggesting that Scenario A was better because it meant 10 people were highly paid rather than just 2.
I would say it depends on what X is.
My primary point was that X being Microsoft Exchange or any of the other big tools that Microsoft markets towards Scenario B is ripe for problems since those low skilled admins will create a lot of problems that fewer higher skilled admins would have prevented.
And the fact that you're comparing 10 high skilled versus 2 high skilled plus 8 lower skilled also highlights the problem because in reality the comparison would more likely be:
5 high skilled admins to do job X.
1 high skilled admins and 40 low skilled admins to do job X.
1 good high skilled admin is usually worth at least 10 low skilled admins.
The other problem with your scenario is that the low skilled admins work at the behest of the high skilled admin; and they'll usually be LOWER skilled than they should be (e.g fresh off the certificate farm or out of school) so they're really worth even less.
You can often see this in Windows versus Unix admins where a single high skilled Windows admin will only administer a handful (typically 5, though less than 10) boxes at a time, while a typical Unix/Linux admin will be administering 100+. So again, it depends on what X is.
The sad thing is that management will often use the argument you use to "reduce costs" - but in the end cost themselves more because of the foobars of the lower skilled admins or because they changed models from a cheaper model with more highly skilled admins (e.g 5 high skilled Unix Admins with 500 servers) to a "cheaper" model with lower skilled admins (e.g 2 high skilled Windows Admin and 6 low skilled Windows Admin with 40 servers that all cost more than the 500 servers) but they're "saving" on human costs (not really, but that's how they sell it).
Or take the recent off-shoring of technical services (such as Help Desk) where a small team in the US (or Canada or anywhere in Europe) got replaced by a larger and cheaper team in India. They've discovered that it's not really advantageous to do so - it really does cost more to offshore than keep local people because of all the mistakes the cheaper workers will make - whether cultural differences leading miscommunication or other things of similar nature, ultimately costing customers which makes dents in the bottom lines.
So it really does depend on what X is and what you're trying to do with it or whether you're trying to replace Y with it, and how all the numbers work out. You'll often be surprised to find that what you thought was a cheaper route isn't.
Well it seems that the scenario you are talking about is the one where the software doesn't allow a low-skilled person to do the job.
As in MS Exchange or any of their other business services...services that are often run by low skilled administrators. Though in the case of MS Exchange, I know of one instance in particular where even the high skilled admins couldn't fix it and it took a week for MS to fix the issue.
If MS made their software easy enough to use that a low skilled person can do it, isn't that a good thing?
Only for Microsoft and their Partner when stuff breaks and you have to bring in experts because it's really foobar'd up the wazoo, so much so that only hands-on work by MS can solve the problem - on and it comes at really high billing rates too.
If you arent uploading to GitHub, you are an Alchemist, not a Scientist.
I'm neither an Alchemist nor a Scientist in writing my code. I'm more of an Engineer. An Alchemist does something repetitively and happens upon the same results more by chance than anything else.
A Scientist does better by making it more predictable, but there is little real structure or design to the work, leading to a lot of errors and lots of rework.
An Engineer designs, architects, and makes reproducible work with low errors with little rework.
False positives are not a problem if you deal with them rationally. If a woman is murdered, and the DNA matches one in a million, then in a country of 300 million, there will be 300 matches, and 299 false positives. But if only one lives in the same city, and it happens to be her ex-boyfriend, then the DNA match is useful information.
Except in this case that does not work since locality doesn't matter for the Internet or software. Also many good groups establish various coding standards so many authors will now become one; some individuality may survive based on logic structure, but that would get mitigated quickly by group reviews and code updates in response.
If you are refering to the odd curve in the US interstate system, they are placed there on purpose to keep the driver alert. The concern when laying out the interstate system was that long straight highways would lead to fatigue and accidents, so the curves were inserted as an intentional feature.
While much of the discussion has been around the Interstate system, I'm not referring to simply the Interstate System, but all roads. And per the "odd curve" I'm referring to things like side-roads having a small curve in them (
With regards to driving as safe as people feel physically safe, that is false. Here is a test to try. Take a stretch of highway where people regularly drive over the speed limit. Now park a police car on the shoulder -- people will slow down, even though their physical safety has not changed. While one does take into account how safe they feel while driving, ie. slowing down in the rain. When talking about driving over the speed limit, it has been shown that lack of enforcement of the speed limit is the major factor. In short, it's not that people drive as fast as they think safe, but as fast as they think they can get away with.
Presence of an officer may have a small impact; however, that will only be for the short distance around the officer. Left alone, people will typically follow what the psychology of the road itself will mentally suggest to them. This is based on the curves, stop signs, traffic lights, distances between such things, how many lanes there are, etc.
For instance, adding a second lane each way bumps up the speed that people think they should be going - enforcement of the limit doesn't change that psychological effect; it's better to take the psychological effect into account when designing the road or changes to it as you can actually make everyone slow down (or speed up) regardless of the presence of an officer.
You just identified the real issue "following too closely behind the vehicle in front of you" perhaps if there was a legislative/punitive or technological solution to this, issues relating to "traffic waves" would be solved.
Great sarcasm considering there is...
Socrates figured people should ask questions about *everything*. We have a world where people get a glance at something, make up some stuff, and then stop asking questions about it and presume anyone who disagrees with them is a moron; on the other end, someone gets a certification telling us they know about something, so we stop asking questions and assume anyone who disagrees with *them* is a moron. Socrates wanted us to question ourselves *and* the experts, to find out why the experts disagree with us, and then to decide if the reason for disagreement was valid, or if we could even assess it with the information we had. Do that enough and you'll start realizing the experts are wrong--they're always wrong, just less-wrong than all of their predecessors.
Socrates lived in a time when the sum total of human knowledge was a little fraction of what we know today, and this it was a lot easier to get up to the state of the art in several fields. Sure, we should question experts, but on average, the risk of rationalising our snap judgement with half-understood facts and simplified sound bites is not insignificant. The expert is not always right, but he usually comes closer to the truth than a non-expert.
Really? Hmm...I'd beg to differ. Why? Well, there's quite a few things from that time that we still CANNOT figure out. For instance, how could the pyramids and numerous other structures so perfectly aligned (
No, there was an intelligence and knowledge that in many respect surpassed what we know today. Sure we have a good understanding of biology, engineering, etc; but much of what we know comes from the Greeks, Romans, and Chinese; much of which was been rediscovered. Probably about the only way in which we are more advanced is in our knowledge and use of high tech equipment to make CPUs and other stuff - but we do so using more rudimentary methods of making that stuff than the Romans and Greeks did.
IOW, there's very strong evidence that the knowledge in the ancient world was a lot greater than we have today. There was just a lot that was lost. After all, how long are our buildings and structures lasting for? There's Roman Roads that are still in service while ours have to be maintained every year; aquaducts that lasted as long as water flowed through them, and even then there's great sections of them that have been standing for centuries. The buildings today won't last that long - the materials break down too quickly.
So...everyone? The issue here is that people tend to drive as fast or as slow as the road allows, normally it's the common law speed limit. Humans can usually adjust to this, robots with strict rules can't.
That is incorrect. People tend to drive as fast or as slow as enforcement of the speed limit allows. If authorities start enforcing the speed limit, the speed driven will decrease. Since there is no real penalty to speeding, people speed.
Not quite.
There's been quite a few studies that have shown that roads have a psychology behind them, and that people will tend to drive more towards the speed limit that the road psychologically feels like it should be. You can make the speed limit whatever you want, but if people's natural instinct is that it should be faster then they will go faster. You can enforce a slower speed limit too, but that will just result in more tickets, not people going slower.
So if you ever wonder why there's an odd curve in an otherwise straight road...it's because they're trying to play to the psychology of the road to get people to naturally slow down. Fewer tickets, fewer accidents, fewer problems all around.
That said, this is something that's really only come up in the last 15-20 years so there are very few places that really take this into account.
In the UK you can be pulled-over if you are driving in the middle lane and there is no one in the outer lane (left-lane in UK, right-lane in US).
You can be in the US too. And many states of laws that if you are not passing something within a certain distance (3 miles for Pennsylvania) then you better move over to the right lane.
Yeah, the context of the quote is severely butchered. That's something an *editor* would normally fix.
Editors are too expensive...so we get crap insted of reel content, but that's probably how Dice gets their articals through so offten
**end purposeful bad writing editors would normally catch**
I don't know who's telling you that "a lot of applications use a cut and paste prime", but they're probably wrong. Every standard application and library in wide use generates new primes every time it generates a new key. If it didn't, every key it generated would be the same, and this would be caught out fast.
Well...that OpenSSL bug in Debian (due to a patch in the Debian version of OpenSSL to "harden" OpenSSL) that caused all the primes to be the same a few years back took over a year to come to the surface. So I wouldn't say it would be "caught out fast".
Keep in mind that the court generally won't restrict the police if the technology is generally available. So if a technology with surveillance capabilities is commonly used by the general populace, then you can't usually prevent the state from employing it. Besides, think about it: the idea that someone driving the highway can link cars, by tag, to individuals and their home address is kind of creepy. Automated stalking.
Kind of...the law can limit government (police) in that nature, but government will of course be reluctant to do so. However, you failed to miss my point - it's not the technology itself that is the problem, it's what will be done with the data that is the problem.
The issue is not how much one person can collect - it'll be fairly localized. However, if government were allowed to do it then you'd have things like the NSA data collection going on - world-wide with all kinds of privacy implications, and THAT is the problem.
Sadly, very few citizens feel this way. They have this strange idea that police are basically our parents and we need permission to do anything.
That's the great liberal/progressive/socialist delusion - that the state knows better than the individual - and runs very strongly in the Democrat party. It's also why we have ObamaCare (for better or worse) - because the Democrats took that view and said "we know better, so we're going to pass this no matter what anyone says".