A REAL geek is running a web server on a 386SX. Personally, I don't understand all of this dick waving about fast computers. Any moron with a few hundred bucks can buy a fast computer. Big fucking deal. I'm always impressed by somebody using ancient, ancient hardware, held together with duct tape. Geekiness is all about resourcefulness, not running out to Best Buy every week like a fucking lemming.
Leaner is more. Leaner is cooler. If you can get done what you want to get done by being smart as opposed to throwing soon-to-be-overpriced hardware at the problem, all the better.
This whole thing strikes me as horribly condescending, although perhaps its the logical extension of the Intel/AMD/Cyrix "Performance Rating" stupidity. And if so, does Joe Sixpack DESERVE the condescension, for buying into the crap before?
No, what's condescending is you essentially calling everyone who doesn't spend their days pouring over chip specs idiots. Believe it or not, there are those of us out there who don't know what the latest Intel/AMD specs are and who, quite honestly, couldn't care less. This is actually a good idea (again, for those few ignorant souls on the planet who don't know the difference between an Intel P4/2000abc and an AMD 12098345689).
No. There's one functional element. A reasonably priced, off-the-shelf, easy to use, supportable point of sale system. Period. The technical implications are completely irrelevant. I'm looking for a business solution. I couldn't care if it was run by hamsters on a wheel. But yes, you're right, there are retailers that use Linux. If I had a few million to invest, I'm sure there'd be a Linux solution I'd consider.
You're just making lame excuses so you don't feel like schmuck for paying for something you never should have.
Hey, if you can set up a 100% secure PC with point of sale software that integrates with Quickbooks in the back end and processes credit cards, and can handle multiple stores, has excellent reporting and supports all standard point of sale software, all on Linux, for less than $1000/workstation, contact me & we'll talk. Until then, don't call me a schmuck.
I don't know any specifics. We can't run Linux is our business (no application software available).
I read about Linux vulnerabilities all of the time, but I don't pay any attention because we don't use Linux for anything.
The point is that NO computer system is 100% secure. Especially one that is connected to the Net. Assuming that one OS is inherently safe is on par with someone in an SUV believing that they're safe on the highways, when in reality, that smug feeling of safety often encourages people to ignore problems or to be reckless.
Think, linux thin client architecture, you only get what the admin gives you. You want to issue a license you click the license icon on the gnome desktop that was placed there by the DMV administrator.
If this wasn't being done in Windows, what makes you think that their brilliant admins will even be able to figure out how to do this under Linux?
Firstly, Microsoft's vision is a homogenus computing environment. That's DANGEROUS and every computer expert agrees on this point.
Luckily, computer experts generally don't run businesses. You're suggesting that instead of having everybody in an organization run the same software, that you should have multiple platforms, so you have to double or triple your IT bugdet to track security holes on MULTIPLE platforms, do MULTIPLE software rollouts, and hire several people just to deal with data translation between the platforms? Are you kidding?
You're simply promoting security through obscurity, and a very expensive method at that. That's probably the most boneheaded suggestion that I've heard, unless you happen to run a computer security company, and you need multiple platforms for testing.
ny machine without a virus scanner is a risk to their uber-secure network.
They're right, and you're wrong. It's a mindset like that that's gonna get you fucked over. "Oh, I run Linux, which is 100% bug and virus free. There's no *way* that I could have an insecurities on my box." You just keep telling youtself that. That and a tin foil hat will keep you safe. I really hope you're not in IT.
Well, my 6 employee company has standardized on W2K. We've been testing Firefox for the past month, and with the exception of a few IE specific apps, we'll be staying with Firefox now.
I agree. I would never, ever reward that kind of behavior. In reality, if I met such a person, I'd probably beat the living shit out of them just on principle. I sure as hell wouldn't hire him.
Re:Speeding, the offense of hardened criminals.
on
Would You Hire A Hacker?
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
I tend to think that just because someone creates a virus that happens to work well, and causes massive amounts of destruction isn't a horrible person at heart.
And along those lines, Osama Bin Laden isn't a bad guy. He just happened to organize an attach that casued massive amount fo destruction. After all, who hasn't fantasized about killing large numbers of people?
And while you are busy trying to make this assertion to a hiring manager, somebody else who doesn't deal with pedantic stuff like "hacker vs cracker" is taking your job.
If I were/., I'd be careful. They're getting very close to libel. To take something this serious, and completely spin it around, and announce it in a public forum is just ASKING for a law suit. In this case, I think that/. would be fucked if MS saw this and wanted to pursue it.
How is this "large scale?" Maybe it's medium-scale as far as the web goes, but otherwise, it's very much a lightweight app. From livejournal.org:
Per Hour: 6818
Per Minute: 114
That's 2 inserts a second, and maybe a hundred queries a second. Quite honestly, that could be handled by MySQL & PHP. Definitely not what I'd call "large scale".
Microsoft's patchwork (pun intended) is hard to maintain and hard to follow. On Linux everything is modular: If some program (or the kernel) has a problem, usually versions = are safe. You don't need to upgrade any other programs either. Simple. Easy. Not so on Windows. On Windows you have to deal with service packs which are risky because they change so much that companies even have to test them on test-machines because they can break anything or with patches which are pretty complicated to track (which machine has been patched and which wasn't is pretty challenging.) Therefore Windows-machines are not as often updated as Linux machines.
I disagree 100%. This is one place where Linux is sorely lacking. Updates on most Linux distributions are still much too difficult for most users. There's no cohesive way of updating everything relating to the OS, so I would think that most people running Linux as a desktop are running with old software. MS has it's very, very simple automatic updates. There's nothing like it in Linux-land.
Since I was a little kid, I've always aspired to be a high stress, coke-snorting, morally-bankrupt NYC corporate pirate screaming into a giant bag phone, on the verge on an anneurism and a heart attack. Ah the 80's.... Good times. Good times.
Now, for all those who are going to scream about how we should all just watch quietly as Microsoft goes about it's business of squeezing us for money... MS is a convicted monopolist. I personally believe that there is no place for a monopoly in a free market economy. It will always result in the devistation of the marketplace, just as MS has. Capital for software development didn't dry up just because of the Dotcom meltdown. It has vanished because no one wants to invest in developing a software product that MS might decide to compete against.
If you want a good example, just look at Firefox vs. IE. MS stopped development work on IE after they "won" the browser wars. Firefox is quietly taking over the market now by being better, faster, and far more secure. This could only be done by an Open Source project, because we saw what happened to Netscape when they tried to compete against the company that controlled the operating system.
So which is it? Is this "convicted monopolist" stifling competition, or is Firefox starting to eat IE's lunch? If Firefox takes the lead, then that proves that MS is NOT a monopoly. If MS is a monopoly, then how is Firefox starting to take the lead?
My point is that MS sales are only increasing. There's obviously no way to track Linux usage. Linux is not unknown any more. People (such as myself) simply choose not to use it for all kinds of reasons. Price is by no means the only factor when making a buying decision. If that were the case, Yugo would have been a huge success.
Just because you cannot get linux to work for you does not make it unusable for the rest of the world.
And just because you use it doesn't mean that other people can. I don't know of a single person who uses Linux, even my techie-geek friends. But that's beside the fact. I can use it the day there's a decent business financials package and a point of sale system available for it. Until then, it's just a toy for me (and not a fun one, either).
Do you actually work for a commercial software developer? Have you ever actually developed commercial software?
I was a professional software developer all through the Dot-com boom ('96-'02 roughly). I started uot in QA, actually. I worked several places that had very rigorous QA departments. Generally web-based apps. In most places, we had development boxes. We pushed the code to QA, who broke it and sent it back to us. Then code would go to a staging cluster. Tested some more, then finally sent to the customer/published on the development web site or rolled back completely back to development where it would start the whole process over again if it was something serious. Of course, these weren't little PHP/MySQL projects, either. I only worked for one tiny company (10 or so employees) where there was little to no testing, the rest (about 8-10 other employers during my time in IT) had real, full-time QA people.
Slashdot Mirror
A REAL geek is running a web server on a 386SX. Personally, I don't understand all of this dick waving about fast computers. Any moron with a few hundred bucks can buy a fast computer. Big fucking deal. I'm always impressed by somebody using ancient, ancient hardware, held together with duct tape. Geekiness is all about resourcefulness, not running out to Best Buy every week like a fucking lemming.
Leaner is more. Leaner is cooler. If you can get done what you want to get done by being smart as opposed to throwing soon-to-be-overpriced hardware at the problem, all the better.
Neither. It identifies you as a good consumer. I guess that most people are into that...
This whole thing strikes me as horribly condescending, although perhaps its the logical extension of the Intel/AMD/Cyrix "Performance Rating" stupidity. And if so, does Joe Sixpack DESERVE the condescension, for buying into the crap before?
No, what's condescending is you essentially calling everyone who doesn't spend their days pouring over chip specs idiots. Believe it or not, there are those of us out there who don't know what the latest Intel/AMD specs are and who, quite honestly, couldn't care less. This is actually a good idea (again, for those few ignorant souls on the planet who don't know the difference between an Intel P4/2000abc and an AMD 12098345689).
No. There's one functional element. A reasonably priced, off-the-shelf, easy to use, supportable point of sale system. Period. The technical implications are completely irrelevant. I'm looking for a business solution. I couldn't care if it was run by hamsters on a wheel. But yes, you're right, there are retailers that use Linux. If I had a few million to invest, I'm sure there'd be a Linux solution I'd consider.
You're just making lame excuses so you don't feel like schmuck for paying for something you never should have.
Hey, if you can set up a 100% secure PC with point of sale software that integrates with Quickbooks in the back end and processes credit cards, and can handle multiple stores, has excellent reporting and supports all standard point of sale software, all on Linux, for less than $1000/workstation, contact me & we'll talk. Until then, don't call me a schmuck.
I don't know any specifics. We can't run Linux is our business (no application software available). I read about Linux vulnerabilities all of the time, but I don't pay any attention because we don't use Linux for anything.
The point is that NO computer system is 100% secure. Especially one that is connected to the Net. Assuming that one OS is inherently safe is on par with someone in an SUV believing that they're safe on the highways, when in reality, that smug feeling of safety often encourages people to ignore problems or to be reckless.
Think, linux thin client architecture, you only get what the admin gives you. You want to issue a license you click the license icon on the gnome desktop that was placed there by the DMV administrator.
If this wasn't being done in Windows, what makes you think that their brilliant admins will even be able to figure out how to do this under Linux?
Firstly, Microsoft's vision is a homogenus computing environment. That's DANGEROUS and every computer expert agrees on this point.
Luckily, computer experts generally don't run businesses. You're suggesting that instead of having everybody in an organization run the same software, that you should have multiple platforms, so you have to double or triple your IT bugdet to track security holes on MULTIPLE platforms, do MULTIPLE software rollouts, and hire several people just to deal with data translation between the platforms? Are you kidding?
You're simply promoting security through obscurity, and a very expensive method at that. That's probably the most boneheaded suggestion that I've heard, unless you happen to run a computer security company, and you need multiple platforms for testing.
ny machine without a virus scanner is a risk to their uber-secure network.
They're right, and you're wrong. It's a mindset like that that's gonna get you fucked over. "Oh, I run Linux, which is 100% bug and virus free. There's no *way* that I could have an insecurities on my box." You just keep telling youtself that. That and a tin foil hat will keep you safe. I really hope you're not in IT.
Well, my 6 employee company has standardized on W2K. We've been testing Firefox for the past month, and with the exception of a few IE specific apps, we'll be staying with Firefox now.
I agree. I would never, ever reward that kind of behavior. In reality, if I met such a person, I'd probably beat the living shit out of them just on principle. I sure as hell wouldn't hire him.
I tend to think that just because someone creates a virus that happens to work well, and causes massive amounts of destruction isn't a horrible person at heart.
And along those lines, Osama Bin Laden isn't a bad guy. He just happened to organize an attach that casued massive amount fo destruction. After all, who hasn't fantasized about killing large numbers of people?
Hackers create, crackers destroy.
And while you are busy trying to make this assertion to a hiring manager, somebody else who doesn't deal with pedantic stuff like "hacker vs cracker" is taking your job.
If I were /., I'd be careful. They're getting very close to libel. To take something this serious, and completely spin it around, and announce it in a public forum is just ASKING for a law suit. In this case, I think that /. would be fucked if MS saw this and wanted to pursue it.
Read what? What are people supposed to read? What manual? What instructions? Welcome to 1990. There is no manual, any more.
How is this "large scale?" Maybe it's medium-scale as far as the web goes, but otherwise, it's very much a lightweight app. From livejournal.org:
Per Hour: 6818
Per Minute: 114
That's 2 inserts a second, and maybe a hundred queries a second. Quite honestly, that could be handled by MySQL & PHP. Definitely not what I'd call "large scale".
Microsoft's patchwork (pun intended) is hard to maintain and hard to follow. On Linux everything is modular: If some program (or the kernel) has a problem, usually versions = are safe. You don't need to upgrade any other programs either. Simple. Easy. Not so on Windows. On Windows you have to deal with service packs which are risky because they change so much that companies even have to test them on test-machines because they can break anything or with patches which are pretty complicated to track (which machine has been patched and which wasn't is pretty challenging.) Therefore Windows-machines are not as often updated as Linux machines.
I disagree 100%. This is one place where Linux is sorely lacking. Updates on most Linux distributions are still much too difficult for most users. There's no cohesive way of updating everything relating to the OS, so I would think that most people running Linux as a desktop are running with old software. MS has it's very, very simple automatic updates. There's nothing like it in Linux-land.
Since I was a little kid, I've always aspired to be a high stress, coke-snorting, morally-bankrupt NYC corporate pirate screaming into a giant bag phone, on the verge on an anneurism and a heart attack. Ah the 80's.... Good times. Good times.
If an arab group or someone else with a chip on their shoulder got their filthy hands on it,
You mean like the current Bush administration??
Now, for all those who are going to scream about how we should all just watch quietly as Microsoft goes about it's business of squeezing us for money... MS is a convicted monopolist. I personally believe that there is no place for a monopoly in a free market economy. It will always result in the devistation of the marketplace, just as MS has. Capital for software development didn't dry up just because of the Dotcom meltdown. It has vanished because no one wants to invest in developing a software product that MS might decide to compete against.
If you want a good example, just look at Firefox vs. IE. MS stopped development work on IE after they "won" the browser wars. Firefox is quietly taking over the market now by being better, faster, and far more secure. This could only be done by an Open Source project, because we saw what happened to Netscape when they tried to compete against the company that controlled the operating system.
So which is it? Is this "convicted monopolist" stifling competition, or is Firefox starting to eat IE's lunch? If Firefox takes the lead, then that proves that MS is NOT a monopoly. If MS is a monopoly, then how is Firefox starting to take the lead?
Well then, I'll go out and spend a billion dollars on a custom system that they did. Yeah. Real practical.
Sorry to break it to you but you have to know what you are doing with Windows also.
That may be true, but that still doesn't make Linux any more useful to me, since it can't do what I need it to do.
My point is that MS sales are only increasing. There's obviously no way to track Linux usage. Linux is not unknown any more. People (such as myself) simply choose not to use it for all kinds of reasons. Price is by no means the only factor when making a buying decision. If that were the case, Yugo would have been a huge success.
Just because you cannot get linux to work for you does not make it unusable for the rest of the world.
And just because you use it doesn't mean that other people can. I don't know of a single person who uses Linux, even my techie-geek friends. But that's beside the fact. I can use it the day there's a decent business financials package and a point of sale system available for it. Until then, it's just a toy for me (and not a fun one, either).
Do you actually work for a commercial software developer? Have you ever actually developed commercial software?
I was a professional software developer all through the Dot-com boom ('96-'02 roughly). I started uot in QA, actually. I worked several places that had very rigorous QA departments. Generally web-based apps. In most places, we had development boxes. We pushed the code to QA, who broke it and sent it back to us. Then code would go to a staging cluster. Tested some more, then finally sent to the customer/published on the development web site or rolled back completely back to development where it would start the whole process over again if it was something serious. Of course, these weren't little PHP/MySQL projects, either. I only worked for one tiny company (10 or so employees) where there was little to no testing, the rest (about 8-10 other employers during my time in IT) had real, full-time QA people.