the problem with John Denver's plane had nothing to do with the selector being confusing. It was placed in such a way that you could not physically reach it to change it without getting out of your seat unless you were in the rear seat (not the pilot's seat).
The rear seat *is* the "pilot's seat" in a Long-EZ. The design *plans* call for the fuel selector to be between the pilot's legs.
The builder (having purchased the plans) felt this was not a safe place - that meant that fuel lines would have to be routed through the cockpit. In case of a crash, that would mean fuel spilling in the cockpit, with the resultant risk of fire.
He felt it safer to instead, move the selector to the engine firewall, and put the knob on the back of the cockpit wall. This meant that the selector had a shaft that extended back into the firewall, moving the source of fuel to the engine. Good intentions and all of that.
(The biggest problem was the selector was un-placarded as to what selection was which.)
Reaching over the left shoulder was easily accomplished - unless of course, you had a pillow in your back so you could reach the rudder pedals.
The problem was with the adaption of the original Rutan design - to deal (as history has shown, poorly) with a design issue that Rutan considered unimportant to the disagreement of the builder. To get back to the thread at hand - the builder changed the interface because he disagreed with the designer.
Ah, you're one of the hot-shots that can get anything you want.
First I was a spoiled kid, now I'm a superstar.
Ah, I suppose its an improvement. Doesn't change the fallacy of your argument, but its still an improvement.
Nope. I don't have a contract. I'm in an at-will state. (which I won't bother to explain here)
I've got 40 hours a week, 3 weeks vacation, and anything over 40 gets paid at 1.5X.
You can doubt all you like, its obvious you're ranting as opposed to knowing anything about the subject matter, willing to stay on topic, or learning anything, much less _asking_ when its obvious you're lacking knowledge.
As for free time, I my pilot's license last year in under 5 months working here - mostly by flexible time, going during the week, at lunch, or leaving early. Also played on the work softball team and basketball team. Haven't had a lot of free time, you're right.
Have fun with the rest of your ignorant ad hom's. (I'm sure more are coming)
Safety is one of many reasons. And you'll find that all of the OSHA laws on the books were enacted after unions had made many gains, especially in the 1930's.
Yep.
As union membership has declined, those laws have been slowly eroded. Nowadays, companies do their own safety inspections and the few punishments that are given are slaps on the wrist.
Bull.
The laws have gotten tougher and tougher.
And you're completely forgetting the new regulatory system - Regulation By Lawyer. In the 30's you couldn't sue the company and win millions. Now, that, in a cycle with insurance, has made "safe" workplaces a requirement because of the civil risk.
It won't happen without unions.
I'm not sure what you're saying. The workweek is set to 40 hours. Yep, Unions had a huge factor in that.
Of course, since then, we now have people moving across the country/world for jobs, telecommuting, and other niceties that didn't exist back then, when the laborers had to live within walking distance of their job.
If the employers here want to jerk me around, someone else, somewhere, will be willing to pay me what I'm worth - and its *my* job to keep that worth up.
If in those 3 months, there's a downturn, then *I* don't get to sit at the table. Instead, there's a layoff, and the people who have been there the longest (which in systems such as this, tend to promote the ones who are not well above average), stay, and I'm (or 30% of the staff) on the street. Gee. Some "power".
Otherwise, its *my* skills and expertise at stake. (Whatever happened to "The American Way"?) Not my seniority. Its a matter of being paid what I'm *worth*, not what someone who's been here X amount of time is given.
I should think that higher educated labour should be smart enough to see this, it's so obvious.
So why doesn't management unionize, then?
After all, if its the SMART thing to do...
All your other arguments are basically based on the half-assed implementation of unions in the U.S.
Gee. Since I'm US based, and the company in question is, YES, THAT'S THE TOPIC BEING DISCUSSED. Discussing any other system would be off topic and useless. Any Union in discussion *would be* a "half-assed US implementation".
Can you give me one reason why collective bargaining is not good for workers, whatever their education?
I already have. You've made up your mind, despite being ignorant, I won't spent overly long attempting to change that.
But because collective bargaining reduces everyone to an average, its a bad thing. There's your one.
You sound like a spoiled kid:
Quite the opposite. I'm one of the top 10%. You're asking me to lose money, promote waste and sloth, and stand in line behind less competent people. None of which was "given" to me, as a "spoiled" kid is. I worked for my job. I've worked in every job, for what I got, and was often underpaid - but not as much as if I'd been in a union and been at the "bottom" of the seniority list.
Sheesh. I thought that the average slashdot reader was smart enough to make a distinction between concept and implementation. Guess I was wrong.
I've got the same sentiment, but its about reality. I don't give a damn about the theory - the theory doesn't *work*. (well).
IT is as effective as it is BECAUSE of the lack of unions. Advocating otherwise is stupid. And advocating based on a system that not even under review is.. Well, you can guess.
Unions do not serve to protect weaker workers at the expense of the hotshots.
Yep, they do. They average. They bring down the top, and bring up the bottom.
Whether you like that or not is irrelevant - the problem is that historically that's exactly what happens. The drive to succeed and exceed is damped down if not taken into an alley and beaten badly by union presence.
Frankly, the imbalance in bargaining power between employer and employee is such that the only way the workers can get a reasonable wage and decent working conditions is by collective bargaining.
So my wage isn't decent? Working conditions are bad?
Not at all. If you want to talk historically, yes, there were reasons for unions to exist for safety. Those have been incredibly superceded by the Governments at the Federal, Local, and State level.
If an employer can't pay union scale without going out of business, that means that he is not profitable enough to pay his employees a decent wage.
That depends on the Union Scale employed, and the contract. How many unneeded and unused employees are guaranteed wages? (And who, per the contract, don't have to do work that isn't being done)?
If you're talking about unskilled labor, unions make more sense. The more skilled you get, the less they make sense. The less you can predict exact jobs, the less they make sense.
Unions add a whole nother level of bureacracy and management (yes, management) to the mix. That's another inefficient layer, adding to the costs, for a certain (which depends) marginal gain (which may be negative).
I certainly don't want to have to wait in line for a promotion when I'm more qualified and harder working than the "senior" people.
Nor do I want to see a business go under because qualified personell weren't allowed or wouldn't do work that was required.
But the best argument about unions I've always found was:
A dedicated Teamsters union worker was attending a convention in Las Vegas and decided to check out the local brothels nearby.
When he got to the first one, he asked the Madam, "Is this a union house?"
"No," she replied, "Of course not."
"Well, if I pay you $100, what do the girls get?"
"The house gets $80 and the girls get $20."
Mightily offended at such unfair dealings, the man stomped off down the street in search of a more equitable, hopefully unionized shop. His search continued until finally he reached a brothel where the Madam responded, "Why yes sir, this IS a union house."
The man asked, "And if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?"
"The girls get $80 and the house gets $20."
"That's more like it!" the UAW man said. He handed the Madam $100, looked around the room and pointed to a stunningly attractive blonde. "I'd like her for the night."
"I'm sure you would, sir," said the Madam, then gesturing to an drooling, obese 85 year old woman in the corner, "but Ethel here has seniority."
And whereas most people just don't notice, or overlook minor quibbles like not counting words correctly - Courts do. I seem to recall an appeal being tossed because it exceeded the number of words allowed, having been typed in Word. (Words count footnotes, if I recall the problem, which Word doesn't count)
And until those sorts of problems are fixed, Word simply isn't usable in a legal context.
And now, since WordPerfect is considerably cheaper than Word, and the lock-in favors WordPerfect, that's unlikely to change unless Corel really severely screws the pooch, and/or folds.
The file you mention is used by the OS/2 subsystem. You won't see those error messages unless you run an OS/2 program under NT.
Of course, its always easier to ignore history. Yes, there's a OS/2 subsystem. If you go do a strings on the NT 3.51 DLLs - and even some 4.0 ones , you'll find IBM's OS/2 copyrights. (Novell made a big deal out of that at one point in sales presentations, and I think the next service pack replaced those that had been pointed out).
Because NT and OS/2, at one point, were the same project. It seperated for a number of reasons, but primarily because Microsoft had the "damn the customers, make 'em buy new hardware". THe OS/2 layer is part of the seperation agreements, and it was disabled/junked as soon as possible (as well as not well done, on purpose).
But your disbelief of history doesn't in the slightest change it.
I'm paraphrasing what the Resource Kit says, not what has passed C2 classifications. I have seen elsewhere that Windows is C2 complient when turned into a standalone box with no external access.
Which is why I commented.
Its a form of the Big Lie - that "common thought" spreads, and soon its the "truth". Just like you said "I've seen.."
Right.
But it was 3.5, with a certain service pack, and on 2 Pentiums from Compaq and 1 Alpha from DEC. That's the *only* C2 certified NT that there ever has been.
NT 4 was submitted and failed. So they insinuate that its "C2" with a program, with comments - and in Official Training they don't make the distinction.
So I felt the need to point that out when you made the comment - NT 3.51 and above is not, (nor likely ever will be) C2 certified.
But perhaps its not, apparently Fog Creek has its pick of people. And you can be picky when that occurs. Heck, probably the people you'll get who meet your critera are probably not that far from the best for the position.... and the best people are so hard to hunt for.:)
Its always nice to have goals.. and as long as you're small, you can get away with it.:)
(We'll have to see if Joel keeps his Microsoft idolation when the next version of IIS puts content management into the package.:))
The Resource Kit says that the only subsystem you have to disable to get C2 complience is the OS/2 system: ie it's the only one that calls directly to the kernel. The DOS/Win31 and POSIX systems do not call to the kernel.
No matter the insinuation - NT 4 and above are *not* C2 (Orange book) certified or compliant.
Yes, Microsoft insinuates they are, yes, the US DoD uses them in places where legally they must have C2, but that doesn't change the fact that only NT 3.5 with 2 x86 and 1 Alpha configurations (and no NIC or floppy drive) EVER has passed C2 certification.
And according to the PayPal agreement, if I recall it, (I stopped using the lying no-good thieves [disclaimer: lying and thieves I can prove, no-good is my subjected opinion as a result] over a year ago) that then YOU'RE legally liable for their rebilling *and* fees associated with gaining such.
They might not go to the trouble, but I think they would.
First of all, the assertion that the company would HAVE to move to per-seat licensing when they moved to separate file, print and mail servers is just wrong. 2000 concurrent users are still 2000 concurrent users, whether they are connected to one server or three.
That's not true. Having been in 1 meeting (too many) with Microsoft licensing, that's a reasonable sounding point. With more than 1 server, they want per-seat checks on EVERY server, to be CERTAIN you aren't cheating.
Secondly, the idea that after 'two or three years' the initial two multiprocessor servers should still be adequate for the 2000 concurrent users is ridiculous.
Boy, do I agree. They should last at least 3-4. At least my (Novell/Linux/Solaris/Irix) ones do. Only ones that don't.. are running NT.
How is this the fault of the OS?
Because NT needs a lot *more* horsepower for the same tasks. Lots and lots more. Sure, today, Intel (or AMD) can keep up with them. We used to joke that 2 years after release, Intel would put out a chip that would begin to run Redmond stuff fast enough. Intel and AMD outpaced the software guys, now.
I've had 60 mHz server chug along for years and years with Novell, no complaints, no need to speed up, because CPU wasn't the issue. (Disk IO finally became the greatest problem, 4 years down the road).
Right now, I'm adminning a 3-year old Solaris box, dual 200-somethings... and its not bogged down or bothered in the slightest. Outside this area, a bunch of NT boxes are being swapped in the rack - they're 2 years old and they need upgrades.
(To make an absolutely honest comparision, you need to know the loads and jobs, etc. But I've seen similar, NT having to be upgraded much more often than the competition.)
In the same paragraph, the author states that the failure of redundant servers was causing increased maintenance costs, and once again this was somehow caused by NT. First, the multiple servers weren't installed to be redundant - they were installed to handle separate functions, i.e., mail / file / print. What synchronization is required
You got confused. They seperated out to seperate machines and THEN had failovers for THEM (6 total for the example). Then when they'd failover, keeping them synced was a problem. Seen something like that, trying to do NT clustering. Lots and lots of time spent trying to keep it up, and running, and per spec. (The claim was that it would *Reduce* the hours needed, remember?)
Usually, 99.9% or the time, a Windows Crash can be pinpointed to a POS driver... Which is not the OS's fault, its the driver's author's fault. Roxio EZ-CD Creator 5 anyone?
On a server? What the @#$#@* is that doing on a server?
And that's not true. While true that bad drivers don't help - plenty of crashes have come from NT itself.
Not knowing any percentage, I won't be so asinine as to make one up, but its far far more than.01, in my experience.
Now, your prior point was that the people being discussed weren't the people doing the bad things.
Now you've lumped them back in together.
It's just absurd.... purely absurd.
No. Hypocritical when the studios use Linux for all the same reasons we do, and refuse to support it because it doesn't assist in their land grab of "fair use" rights.
It's their product. I'm not sure why people think it is their God-given right to demand others to change or enhance their product for their needs.
Because I *bought it*.
And the concept that I can't then use *my* property as *I* see fit (assuming, of course, that its not in ways that would impair the studio, such as making copies) is absurd, purely absurd.
Now, the entire reason why I'm responding is because I have friends who work for a effects company (They did stuff for AI, Shrek, Antz, etc). Now, they are a good company. Fun atmosphere, and guess what? A lot of the employees IRC on OpenProjects.Net.
Now.. yes, they may get money from a source that is in opposition to the open source movement but guess what? If you work for a company so do you.
I don't.
But that's another issue.
They aren't in an employer/employee relationship. They are in a contract. Worlds different.
No. They are producing work for us to buy, but we're not allowed to view it when and where and on what we want.
That was his main point, you completely missed it.
When they are using Linux for the same reason that we are on our desktop(s) - [insert list of reasons here], but then denying us the ability to view our purchased product on said desktop........
And yes, if they're working for those studios, they are part of that process.
Most x86 hardware sucks. It is cheap (in both senses) and not standardized.
And its inexpensive, and available, and supported. I can buy replacements/upgrades easily. Stunningly easily, compared to Macintosh.
And fast. I can buy brand new, blazingly fast X86 and Athlon systems for a fraction of a Mac's cost. And by and large, even with legacy problems (something the Macintosh has as well), those systems will run absolute rings around the Mac.
Want to go to real high quality, UNIX and the like boxes? Fine, the price goes up even higher, then.
Much of the attraction of the Mac is due to the fact that real engineering went into the design and integration of the hardware and software.
Heh. That might be believable if I hadn't been an Amiga owner and Mac user in the late 80s/early 90s, when it was painfully obvious what kludges Mac hardware and software was becoming.
Bolting together a box from lowest bidder OEM parts is not computer engineering.
No, its not. But buying high quality parts, to build a system to my specifications isn't either - but that's what I expect to be able to do.
The high-end x86/Athlon stuff makes the stuff available for the Mac, especially with OSX look embarrasing.
And I've been rather impressed with the ease that BeOS is able to handle the x86/Athlon architectures. Yes, its got a restricted hardware list. So does Windows 2000/NT.
A restricted list, only supporting some hundreds/thousands of SCSI/RAID/Video/Sound things isn't anywhere near as difficult to deal with as only running on 5 machines, all of which are price/performance ratio skewed far beyond the attraction of OSX.
Slashdot Mirror
the problem with John Denver's plane had nothing to do with the selector being confusing. It was placed in such a way that you could not physically reach it to change it without getting out of your seat unless you were in the rear seat (not the pilot's seat).
The rear seat *is* the "pilot's seat" in a Long-EZ. The design *plans* call for the fuel selector to be between the pilot's legs.
The builder (having purchased the plans) felt this was not a safe place - that meant that fuel lines would have to be routed through the cockpit. In case of a crash, that would mean fuel spilling in the cockpit, with the resultant risk of fire.
He felt it safer to instead, move the selector to the engine firewall, and put the knob on the back of the cockpit wall. This meant that the selector had a shaft that extended back into the firewall, moving the source of fuel to the engine. Good intentions and all of that.
(The biggest problem was the selector was un-placarded as to what selection was which.)
Reaching over the left shoulder was easily accomplished - unless of course, you had a pillow in your back so you could reach the rudder pedals.
The problem was with the adaption of the original Rutan design - to deal (as history has shown, poorly) with a design issue that Rutan considered unimportant to the disagreement of the builder. To get back to the thread at hand - the builder changed the interface because he disagreed with the designer.
Hey, do you have any Super Nintendos?
Ah, you're one of the hot-shots that can get anything you want.
First I was a spoiled kid, now I'm a superstar.
Ah, I suppose its an improvement. Doesn't change the fallacy of your argument, but its still an improvement.
Nope. I don't have a contract. I'm in an at-will state. (which I won't bother to explain here)
I've got 40 hours a week, 3 weeks vacation, and anything over 40 gets paid at 1.5X.
You can doubt all you like, its obvious you're ranting as opposed to knowing anything about the subject matter, willing to stay on topic, or learning anything, much less _asking_ when its obvious you're lacking knowledge.
As for free time, I my pilot's license last year in under 5 months working here - mostly by flexible time, going during the week, at lunch, or leaving early. Also played on the work softball team and basketball team. Haven't had a lot of free time, you're right.
Have fun with the rest of your ignorant ad hom's. (I'm sure more are coming)
Addison
Safety is one of many reasons. And you'll find that all of the OSHA laws on the books were enacted after unions had made many gains, especially in the 1930's.
Yep.
As union membership has declined, those laws have been slowly eroded. Nowadays, companies do their own safety inspections and the few punishments that are given are slaps on the wrist.
Bull.
The laws have gotten tougher and tougher.
And you're completely forgetting the new regulatory system - Regulation By Lawyer. In the 30's you couldn't sue the company and win millions. Now, that, in a cycle with insurance, has made "safe" workplaces a requirement because of the civil risk.
It won't happen without unions.
I'm not sure what you're saying. The workweek is set to 40 hours. Yep, Unions had a huge factor in that.
Of course, since then, we now have people moving across the country/world for jobs, telecommuting, and other niceties that didn't exist back then, when the laborers had to live within walking distance of their job.
If the employers here want to jerk me around, someone else, somewhere, will be willing to pay me what I'm worth - and its *my* job to keep that worth up.
Unions wouldn't help a blessed thing in IT.
Addison
Only a union can give you that power.
A union *reduces* your power. Not gives you more.
If in those 3 months, there's a downturn, then *I* don't get to sit at the table. Instead, there's a layoff, and the people who have been there the longest (which in systems such as this, tend to promote the ones who are not well above average), stay, and I'm (or 30% of the staff) on the street. Gee. Some "power".
Otherwise, its *my* skills and expertise at stake. (Whatever happened to "The American Way"?) Not my seniority. Its a matter of being paid what I'm *worth*, not what someone who's been here X amount of time is given.
I should think that higher educated labour should be smart enough to see this, it's so obvious.
So why doesn't management unionize, then?
After all, if its the SMART thing to do...
All your other arguments are basically based on the half-assed implementation of unions in the U.S.
Gee. Since I'm US based, and the company in question is, YES, THAT'S THE TOPIC BEING DISCUSSED. Discussing any other system would be off topic and useless. Any Union in discussion *would be* a "half-assed US implementation".
Can you give me one reason why collective bargaining is not good for workers, whatever their education?
I already have. You've made up your mind, despite being ignorant, I won't spent overly long attempting to change that.
But because collective bargaining reduces everyone to an average, its a bad thing. There's your one.
You sound like a spoiled kid:
Quite the opposite. I'm one of the top 10%. You're asking me to lose money, promote waste and sloth, and stand in line behind less competent people. None of which was "given" to me, as a "spoiled" kid is. I worked for my job. I've worked in every job, for what I got, and was often underpaid - but not as much as if I'd been in a union and been at the "bottom" of the seniority list.
Sheesh. I thought that the average slashdot reader was smart enough to make a distinction between concept and implementation. Guess I was wrong.
I've got the same sentiment, but its about reality. I don't give a damn about the theory - the theory doesn't *work*. (well).
IT is as effective as it is BECAUSE of the lack of unions. Advocating otherwise is stupid. And advocating based on a system that not even under review is.. Well, you can guess.
Addison
Unions do not serve to protect weaker workers at the expense of the hotshots.
Yep, they do. They average. They bring down the top, and bring up the bottom.
Whether you like that or not is irrelevant - the problem is that historically that's exactly what happens. The drive to succeed and exceed is damped down if not taken into an alley and beaten badly by union presence.
Frankly, the imbalance in bargaining power between employer and employee is such that the only way the workers can get a reasonable wage and decent working conditions is by collective bargaining.
So my wage isn't decent? Working conditions are bad?
Not at all. If you want to talk historically, yes, there were reasons for unions to exist for safety. Those have been incredibly superceded by the Governments at the Federal, Local, and State level.
If an employer can't pay union scale without going out of business, that means that he is not profitable enough to pay his employees a decent wage.
That depends on the Union Scale employed, and the contract. How many unneeded and unused employees are guaranteed wages? (And who, per the contract, don't have to do work that isn't being done)?
If you're talking about unskilled labor, unions make more sense. The more skilled you get, the less they make sense. The less you can predict exact jobs, the less they make sense.
Unions add a whole nother level of bureacracy and management (yes, management) to the mix. That's another inefficient layer, adding to the costs, for a certain (which depends) marginal gain (which may be negative).
I certainly don't want to have to wait in line for a promotion when I'm more qualified and harder working than the "senior" people.
Nor do I want to see a business go under because qualified personell weren't allowed or wouldn't do work that was required.
But the best argument about unions I've always found was:
A dedicated Teamsters union worker was attending a convention in Las Vegas and decided to check out the local brothels nearby.
When he got to the first one, he asked the Madam, "Is this a union house?"
"No," she replied, "Of course not."
"Well, if I pay you $100, what do the girls get?"
"The house gets $80 and the girls get $20."
Mightily offended at such unfair dealings, the man stomped off down the street in search of a more equitable, hopefully unionized shop. His search continued until finally he reached a brothel where the Madam responded, "Why yes sir, this IS a union house."
The man asked, "And if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?"
"The girls get $80 and the house gets $20."
"That's more like it!" the UAW man said. He handed the Madam $100, looked around the room and pointed to a stunningly attractive blonde. "I'd like her for the night."
"I'm sure you would, sir," said the Madam, then gesturing to an drooling, obese 85 year old woman in the corner, "but Ethel here has seniority."
Addison
As I understand it, its quite simple.
Word don't work [well enough].
And whereas most people just don't notice, or overlook minor quibbles like not counting words correctly - Courts do. I seem to recall an appeal being tossed because it exceeded the number of words allowed, having been typed in Word. (Words count footnotes, if I recall the problem, which Word doesn't count)
And until those sorts of problems are fixed, Word simply isn't usable in a legal context.
And now, since WordPerfect is considerably cheaper than Word, and the lock-in favors WordPerfect, that's unlikely to change unless Corel really severely screws the pooch, and/or folds.
Addison
For it is you who require a clue by four.
The file you mention is used by the OS/2 subsystem. You won't see those error messages unless you run an OS/2 program under NT.
Of course, its always easier to ignore history. Yes, there's a OS/2 subsystem. If you go do a strings on the NT 3.51 DLLs - and even some 4.0 ones , you'll find IBM's OS/2 copyrights. (Novell made a big deal out of that at one point in sales presentations, and I think the next service pack replaced those that had been pointed out).
Because NT and OS/2, at one point, were the same project. It seperated for a number of reasons, but primarily because Microsoft had the "damn the customers, make 'em buy new hardware". THe OS/2 layer is part of the seperation agreements, and it was disabled/junked as soon as possible (as well as not well done, on purpose).
But your disbelief of history doesn't in the slightest change it.
Addison
I'm paraphrasing what the Resource Kit says, not what has passed C2 classifications. I have seen elsewhere that Windows is C2 complient when turned into a standalone box with no external access.
Which is why I commented.
Its a form of the Big Lie - that "common thought" spreads, and soon its the "truth". Just like you said "I've seen.."
Right.
But it was 3.5, with a certain service pack, and on 2 Pentiums from Compaq and 1 Alpha from DEC. That's the *only* C2 certified NT that there ever has been.
NT 4 was submitted and failed. So they insinuate that its "C2" with a program, with comments - and in Official Training they don't make the distinction.
So I felt the need to point that out when you made the comment - NT 3.51 and above is not, (nor likely ever will be) C2 certified.
Addison
I'd suspect that's sarcasm.
:)
:)
:))
But perhaps its not, apparently Fog Creek has its pick of people. And you can be picky when that occurs. Heck, probably the people you'll get who meet your critera are probably not that far from the best for the position.... and the best people are so hard to hunt for.
Its always nice to have goals.. and as long as you're small, you can get away with it.
(We'll have to see if Joel keeps his Microsoft idolation when the next version of IIS puts content management into the package.
Addison
It's taken them 6 long years to get NT technology to the desktop and all that time there were selling DOS-based, 3.1-based operating systems.
:)
Actually... They're still using their marketing muscle to force *that*. Many places, most I'm aware of have easier times with Win95/98 on the desktop.
Similarly, 95 forced 3.1 off corporate desktops when the *preloads* disappeared. It was making progress, but not a lot.
Amazing how that monopoly works.
Addison
The Resource Kit says that the only subsystem you have to disable to get C2 complience is the OS/2 system: ie it's the only one that calls directly to the kernel. The DOS/Win31 and POSIX systems do not call to the kernel.
No matter the insinuation - NT 4 and above are *not* C2 (Orange book) certified or compliant.
Yes, Microsoft insinuates they are, yes, the US DoD uses them in places where legally they must have C2, but that doesn't change the fact that only NT 3.5 with 2 x86 and 1 Alpha configurations (and no NIC or floppy drive) EVER has passed C2 certification.
(That's 3.5. Not 3.51).
Addison
And according to the PayPal agreement, if I recall it, (I stopped using the lying no-good thieves [disclaimer: lying and thieves I can prove, no-good is my subjected opinion as a result] over a year ago) that then YOU'RE legally liable for their rebilling *and* fees associated with gaining such.
They might not go to the trouble, but I think they would.
Addison
Several of his comments also show he's unfamiliar with the agreement that PayPal requires you to abide by.
:)
+3 informative? We need a -2 Disinformation moderation.
Addison
Other people have tried this.
I suggest you _read_ their agreement. You cannot refuse a charge from Paypal, you agree to settle it on THEIR terms.
People have reported in the past that PP just recharges their CC - as they are allowed to do per your contract.
Addison
But simulator time is cheap, as opposed to $50/hr for an old creaky Cessna 172. You also get what you pay for.
:)
If you're paying $50/hr for a 172, I might advise you to take that to heart.
Addison
The First Amendment (to the Constitution of the United States of America) explictly disallows the government from abridging your right to free speech.
This is a contract issue, and as such, not bound by it, or concerned with it.
NDAs, trade secrets, and contracts often have exclusions - legally upheld many times - on what can be said and when.
Addison
That's not true. Having been in 1 meeting (too many) with Microsoft licensing, that's a reasonable sounding point. With more than 1 server, they want per-seat checks on EVERY server, to be CERTAIN you aren't cheating.
Secondly, the idea that after 'two or three years' the initial two multiprocessor servers should still be adequate for the 2000 concurrent users is ridiculous.
Boy, do I agree. They should last at least 3-4. At least my (Novell/Linux/Solaris/Irix) ones do. Only ones that don't.. are running NT.
How is this the fault of the OS? Because NT needs a lot *more* horsepower for the same tasks. Lots and lots more. Sure, today, Intel (or AMD) can keep up with them. We used to joke that 2 years after release, Intel would put out a chip that would begin to run Redmond stuff fast enough. Intel and AMD outpaced the software guys, now.
I've had 60 mHz server chug along for years and years with Novell, no complaints, no need to speed up, because CPU wasn't the issue. (Disk IO finally became the greatest problem, 4 years down the road).
Right now, I'm adminning a 3-year old Solaris box, dual 200-somethings... and its not bogged down or bothered in the slightest. Outside this area, a bunch of NT boxes are being swapped in the rack - they're 2 years old and they need upgrades.
(To make an absolutely honest comparision, you need to know the loads and jobs, etc. But I've seen similar, NT having to be upgraded much more often than the competition.)
In the same paragraph, the author states that the failure of redundant servers was causing increased maintenance costs, and once again this was somehow caused by NT. First, the multiple servers weren't installed to be redundant - they were installed to handle separate functions, i.e., mail / file / print. What synchronization is required
You got confused. They seperated out to seperate machines and THEN had failovers for THEM (6 total for the example). Then when they'd failover, keeping them synced was a problem. Seen something like that, trying to do NT clustering. Lots and lots of time spent trying to keep it up, and running, and per spec. (The claim was that it would *Reduce* the hours needed, remember?)
Addison
On a server? What the @#$#@* is that doing on a server?
And that's not true. While true that bad drivers don't help - plenty of crashes have come from NT itself.Not knowing any percentage, I won't be so asinine as to make one up, but its far far more than .01, in my experience.
Addison
I was wondering about this....
So.. with Redhat as a possibility, gee, golly, whiz.. we'll.. not change anything and see what happens.
That's a *lot* less enthusiastic than "Format the window boxes! Full steam ahead!" which had been implied.
So they're using RH some.. That's good.. but.. So?
I'm waiting for them to *junk* Windows (I've considered doing the Dark Route, trying to get into management and doing that.
*then* I'm interested. Until then its a story about "Look how crappy Microsoft treats us"...
Addison
Whats 28.8 converted to real (USA) units?
Their tactics are at best wrong and unethical.
Now, your prior point was that the people being discussed weren't the people doing the bad things.
Now you've lumped them back in together.
It's just absurd.... purely absurd.
No. Hypocritical when the studios use Linux for all the same reasons we do, and refuse to support it because it doesn't assist in their land grab of "fair use" rights.
It's their product. I'm not sure why people think it is their God-given right to demand others to change or enhance their product for their needs.
Because I *bought it*.
And the concept that I can't then use *my* property as *I* see fit (assuming, of course, that its not in ways that would impair the studio, such as making copies) is absurd, purely absurd.
Addison
Now, the entire reason why I'm responding is because I have friends who work for a effects company (They did stuff for AI, Shrek, Antz, etc). Now, they are a good company. Fun atmosphere, and guess what? A lot of the employees IRC on OpenProjects.Net.
Now.. yes, they may get money from a source that is in opposition to the open source movement but guess what? If you work for a company so do you.
I don't.
But that's another issue.
They aren't in an employer/employee relationship. They are in a contract. Worlds different.
No. They are producing work for us to buy, but we're not allowed to view it when and where and on what we want.
That was his main point, you completely missed it.
When they are using Linux for the same reason that we are on our desktop(s) - [insert list of reasons here], but then denying us the ability to view our purchased product on said desktop........
And yes, if they're working for those studios, they are part of that process.
That's at best hypocritical.
Addison
And I won't hit Bobby on the head, anymore, with the shovel, I PROMISE ..
And its inexpensive, and available, and supported. I can buy replacements/upgrades easily. Stunningly easily, compared to Macintosh.
And fast. I can buy brand new, blazingly fast X86 and Athlon systems for a fraction of a Mac's cost. And by and large, even with legacy problems (something the Macintosh has as well), those systems will run absolute rings around the Mac.
Want to go to real high quality, UNIX and the like boxes? Fine, the price goes up even higher, then.
Much of the attraction of the Mac is due to the fact that real engineering went into the design and integration of the hardware and software.
Heh. That might be believable if I hadn't been an Amiga owner and Mac user in the late 80s/early 90s, when it was painfully obvious what kludges Mac hardware and software was becoming.
Bolting together a box from lowest bidder OEM parts is not computer engineering.
No, its not. But buying high quality parts, to build a system to my specifications isn't either - but that's what I expect to be able to do.
The high-end x86/Athlon stuff makes the stuff available for the Mac, especially with OSX look embarrasing.
And I've been rather impressed with the ease that BeOS is able to handle the x86/Athlon architectures. Yes, its got a restricted hardware list. So does Windows 2000/NT.
A restricted list, only supporting some hundreds/thousands of SCSI/RAID/Video/Sound things isn't anywhere near as difficult to deal with as only running on 5 machines, all of which are price/performance ratio skewed far beyond the attraction of OSX.
Addison