Prior to our migration away from Exchange (and before I arrived), the mail server had failed and it took a week to get it back up and running again. After we had migrated, our linux server failed and I had it back and working in 8 hours (would have been faster but not everything was backed up so I had to recreate config files from scratch:-|) Luckily we had an extra machine in the case of the Linux server. Some people might call that cheating, but what they should realize is we had the extra machine because instead of spending a huge pile of money on upgrading our Microsoft server, we were instead able to spend it on extra hardware. Also it was reeeeeally nice not having to screw with Microsoft licensing while trying to get the mail server up on new hardware. If I had had time to mirror the mailserver on the backup, the restore would have taken minutes, for less than the cost of upgrading the old Microsoft Exchange server.
I have yet to find a way to upgrade Microsoft Windows packages that people are using at that moment without interrupting their work. By all means if you are aware of one let me know (preferably one that doesn't require any type of Microsoft server and doesn't cost thousands of dollars).
Microsoft products are easier to manage than Linux? On the Linux side, I simply rsync software to all our of workstations. I can even upgrade software people are using right at that moment (like rsyncing the newest thunderbird to/usr/local/thunderbird-1.0.7 while they use the thunderbird in/usr/local/thunderbird-1.0.6, and then moving the/usr/local/bin/thunderbird symbolic link to point to the new version). On the windows side, I wander around bugging people to take an early lunch or whatever while I install/upgrade software on their machine.
Also I am pleased to notice that the "independant company" that spewed out this "commissioned report" (see the microsoft page) lists Microsoft on their partners page, and from what I can tell no one who has even heard of Linux (with the exception of HP). Since it looks like their business depends on selling enhanced security products, I can see why they wouldn't be too keen on having people show an interest in Linux.
Security Innovation designed this study to be repeatable, and we believe that the results are consistent with what customers are experiencing in the real world.
And if I wander over and look at my main Linux file server, I see an uptime of 125 days (it had over a year uptime before I physically had to move the server to a different location). During that time the server's files were available 24/7 with absolutely zero problems. Needless to say we have had way fewer problems with the new Linux server; the old Microsoft server crashed or had to be rebooted on a regular basis; the people before me actually had a planned "weekly reboot every Friday evening". When it came time to replace the Microsoft server, Microsoft didn't fare so well, especially when it came time to pay big piles of $$$ to upgrade it: basically we could have bought two linux file servers for the cost of the Microsoft software upgrade costs alone. Hows that for a real-world example?
Perhaps we should investigate additionally using methane as a source of fuel for these trucks. Not only could we keep these guys in business, but in some cases (such as trucks that haul cattle) they might actually produce more energy than they burn.
Actually I like Intel's complicated scheme; instead of looking up which CPU is which I just remember to go buy an AMD processor instead. Probably not what Intel had in mind when they came up with an overly complicated naming scheme however.
This is just so wrong on so many levels. Then again now that I think about it, maybe adding tap dancing storm troopers to episode one would have improved it. My childhood destroyed you have!
Exactly, why build 1 manned craft when for the same cost you could build multiple unmanned craft for the same cost? In the above example, I would rather have five identical unmanned craft than one manned craft (plus the unmanned crafts would be cheaper).
Assuming: 2000 lbs in a ton 20 ton spacecraft $10,000/pound to get to geosynchronous transfer orbit
$400,000,000 just to launch this thing into a geosynchronous transfer orbit (not counting construction costs). I assume the fuel to move it isn't included in the 20 ton estimate either (since it will burn off on the way) so that would need to be lifted as well. I wonder if a huge nuke would be cheaper and easier to construct and launch? Then again, with the current U.S. national debt at over 8 trillion (with which we could pay for the launch costs of 20,000 of these things) maybe the launch costs aren't unreasonable.
Maybe they are really available but are difficult to see? That would be the theme of the contest after all. Time to start digging through the html on the site!
After seeing the goatse image the horror never ends, at least not without a carefully aimed icepick. Of course then the problem is you will forget you saw it before and go see it again later:-(
On the upside with this new technology you can have any length/width you want. Thickness would be a problem, but I am guessing they will come in packs of 100. I should probably just go add a rule in my spam filter to toss any email containing that url right now eh?
This is great because when people complain about infected PCs Microsoft can just claim they are part of a test to get rid of spam. I think most people would be more inclined to admit to clubbing baby seals than interfering with anti-spam research.
Slashdot Mirror
Prior to our migration away from Exchange (and before I arrived), the mail server had failed and it took a week to get it back up and running again. After we had migrated, our linux server failed and I had it back and working in 8 hours (would have been faster but not everything was backed up so I had to recreate config files from scratch :-|) Luckily we had an extra machine in the case of the Linux server. Some people might call that cheating, but what they should realize is we had the extra machine because instead of spending a huge pile of money on upgrading our Microsoft server, we were instead able to spend it on extra hardware. Also it was reeeeeally nice not having to screw with Microsoft licensing while trying to get the mail server up on new hardware. If I had had time to mirror the mailserver on the backup, the restore would have taken minutes, for less than the cost of upgrading the old Microsoft Exchange server.
I have yet to find a way to upgrade Microsoft Windows packages that people are using at that moment without interrupting their work. By all means if you are aware of one let me know (preferably one that doesn't require any type of Microsoft server and doesn't cost thousands of dollars).
Also I am pleased to notice that the "independant company" that spewed out this "commissioned report" (see the microsoft page) lists Microsoft on their partners page, and from what I can tell no one who has even heard of Linux (with the exception of HP). Since it looks like their business depends on selling enhanced security products, I can see why they wouldn't be too keen on having people show an interest in Linux.
Security Innovation designed this study to be repeatable, and we believe that the results are consistent with what customers are experiencing in the real world.
And if I wander over and look at my main Linux file server, I see an uptime of 125 days (it had over a year uptime before I physically had to move the server to a different location). During that time the server's files were available 24/7 with absolutely zero problems. Needless to say we have had way fewer problems with the new Linux server; the old Microsoft server crashed or had to be rebooted on a regular basis; the people before me actually had a planned "weekly reboot every Friday evening". When it came time to replace the Microsoft server, Microsoft didn't fare so well, especially when it came time to pay big piles of $$$ to upgrade it: basically we could have bought two linux file servers for the cost of the Microsoft software upgrade costs alone. Hows that for a real-world example?
Oh and don't forget the company's website. Under the technology tab they have some info as well.
This pdf file might be helpful (or search for it on google to see the html version).
Perhaps we should investigate additionally using methane as a source of fuel for these trucks. Not only could we keep these guys in business, but in some cases (such as trucks that haul cattle) they might actually produce more energy than they burn.
Now THAT is a feature I could use! Those huge 2" thick LCD monitors take up way too much space on my desk.
Now there is a great name for a company! Could it be any more obvious their products contain spyware????
Actually I like Intel's complicated scheme; instead of looking up which CPU is which I just remember to go buy an AMD processor instead. Probably not what Intel had in mind when they came up with an overly complicated naming scheme however.
Maybe he was trying to imply some poor slob (i.e. without a penny) would sneak in with a digital camera?
This is just so wrong on so many levels. Then again now that I think about it, maybe adding tap dancing storm troopers to episode one would have improved it. My childhood destroyed you have!
Yeah but visitors from parallel universes need IP numbers too.
Do I have to pay the 100 billion up front or can I pay $100/month for the next 83,333,334 years?
I heard that NASA is keeping an eye on all the really good Katamari players for just this kind of scenario....
Yeah, but why build just one plan A1 when you can build two for twice the cost? Mmmmm A1 (steak sauce).
Exactly, why build 1 manned craft when for the same cost you could build multiple unmanned craft for the same cost? In the above example, I would rather have five identical unmanned craft than one manned craft (plus the unmanned crafts would be cheaper).
2000 lbs in a ton
20 ton spacecraft
$10,000/pound to get to geosynchronous transfer orbit
$400,000,000 just to launch this thing into a geosynchronous transfer orbit (not counting construction costs). I assume the fuel to move it isn't included in the 20 ton estimate either (since it will burn off on the way) so that would need to be lifted as well. I wonder if a huge nuke would be cheaper and easier to construct and launch? Then again, with the current U.S. national debt at over 8 trillion (with which we could pay for the launch costs of 20,000 of these things) maybe the launch costs aren't unreasonable.
You know a server is slashdotted when it takes 10 minutes to load an empty file.
Maybe they are really available but are difficult to see? That would be the theme of the contest after all. Time to start digging through the html on the site!
My favorite from years past is this one by smr which claims to be the smallest self replicating program.
After seeing the goatse image the horror never ends, at least not without a carefully aimed icepick. Of course then the problem is you will forget you saw it before and go see it again later :-(
Or your computer could get an STD (Screenally Transmitted Disease) from viewing pornographic images.
If that is all you want to see, wouldn't it be cheaper to buy this instead?
On the upside with this new technology you can have any length/width you want. Thickness would be a problem, but I am guessing they will come in packs of 100. I should probably just go add a rule in my spam filter to toss any email containing that url right now eh?
This is great because when people complain about infected PCs Microsoft can just claim they are part of a test to get rid of spam. I think most people would be more inclined to admit to clubbing baby seals than interfering with anti-spam research.