To a degree I *am* implying you shouldn't complain. You have a choice. Linux or one of the BSDs makes a *great* server operating system that is much more stable than a Windows based server (we all know that is a subjective arguement because a Windows 2000 based server can be very stable in the hands of someone with knowledge - but even then take a look at how many tasks people run on an average *nix based system versus the number on a Win2k server - hint: win2k: 1, *nix: 1 or more). Unfortunately for you *nix is complex. Tough cookies. In my opinion you should just sit down and spend a couple days to learn the basic system. It isn't as complex as you think it is and in terms of power and stability it is far ahead of Windows.
You're wrong, man (well, I mean, I disagree w/ you). The worse is still there. Try to connect x users to a Win200 Advanced Server and it will reject all users with a connection number > y, where y maps to mucho mucho $$$ that you had to pay for your y-seat license. Basically, Microsoft forces you to buy an OS, then forces you to pay insane license fees because that OS is being used by more than one person. That's pure robbery. What next? They going to make me pay extra each time I get an email from somebody else?
The more people disagree with Microsofts licensing costs the more likely they are to investigate other platforms. What's not to like?
It's fine and well to expect different levels of support. But what if you aren't particularly interested in the support? If you know you're quite capable of setting up your Win2K machine as a web server, stuff the support. You know the machine can do it, so why fork out a whole lot of extra $$$ for the "server edition"? The crux of the issue is that the "workstation edition" is *deliberately crippled*. They have deliberately added extra code to (for example) limit the maximum number of incoming TCP connections.
You're going to fork over the money because Microsoft wants you to. Is that hard to understand? They are running a business and have decided that a server edition is going to cost more than a desktop edition. I can try to justify that by saying the increased cost is to make up for the more knowledgeable people needed in support for a server (as opposed to a desktop) but in reality it doens't matter what I say - Microsoft has decided that you're going to pay more. Don't like that? Don't run Windows!
This is more than just a case of the server edition being "more optimized". It's a case of you being forced to buy the more expensive edition through deliberately crippling the workstation edition.
And what exactly is wrong with this? Sure it sucks but it is their choice. What are you going to do about it?
Shouldn't you be allowed to at least make the choice? If you're going to buy and you dont want support, then you should have some choice in what you buy. Your idea that you are definitely going to want support is completely bizarre to me. Support is not some intrinsic part of the product, and should never be. Support is something optional that you pay extra for that gives some people a comforting feeling that if the system messes up they have someone to phone that'll fix everything up. In reality "support" doesn't work that way though. Why should the "tech support" be worked into the price of the product? Why should I pay more for it just because somebody else wants to be able to phone someone when they don't know how to install a network printer or configure the web server or something?
Why should I be able to choose if I want to pay Microsoft more money or not? You already realistically do make that choice because if you need support you're going to have to pay for it pretty quickly. I agree that required support is completely bizarre but who cares what we think. We are techies. They aren't marketing us - they are marketing our bosses and ultimately our CEO(s).
Why not just charge a flat price for the OS (all those optional extras and configuration tools can be selected via amazing things called "checkboxes" when you install the system) and then charge extra differing amounts for differing levels of support? Exactly like RedHat in fact. One set of installation media, with an option on startup "server" or "workstation" install. No crippling needed, and if you want lots of support, pay for it. As for "optimizations in the software", well, once again these should be configurable via those amazing "checkboxes", "radio buttons" and "configuration tools". In NT you can dynamically select "optimize for background processes" for example. There is no absolute rule in the universe that each set of "optimizations" can only be fixed to one particular set of installation media. Thats ridiculous - the only time this happens is if the company designing deliberately goes out of their way to limit the options available to clients, which is exactly what happens with MS.
So why should Microsoft do this for you? Why not continue charging more for the server edition? You're only arguement is that it sucks because it shouldn't be that way, it should be cheaper, etc. Who cares? Microsoft is a business and the license of their software allows them to sell it as they wish.
With the optimizations I would expect a desktop version to be shipped with most daemons off
You seem to be under the impression that daemons are turned off by the manufacturer on the installation CD itself when they burn the CD. Please. It is the easiest thing in the world to select which daemons should be installed and/or disabled by default when installing a system based on what the user wants. I can only assume that you've have never installed any RedHat system released in the last 2 years.
That's the ticket - try to quesiton the posters intelligence. Come on now - we all know that these choices can be selected during installation, etc.. But why? Microsoft is doing what they want. If you disagree with their practices use something else. Just because you think it is wrong doesn't mean they are going to change!
Ultimately it boils down to this: the addtional cost of a server license over a desktop license for Windows sucks. Well that is great I think - if you are so concerned about this additional cost than other people will be too and they will realize that perhaps Microsoft isn't looking out for them - it is watching the bottom line and making money. You have a choice! Use something else!
(oh, and for the record, I've used RedHat 6.2 extensively, 7.0 a bit, and previous versions not so much - I was using Slackware and FreeBSD around then)
Except as pointed out above (in other thread) you can only have one of these cards in a Sun box so NOBODY HAS A BUNCH OF BOXES FULL OF THESE THINGS!
Re:Slight *major* problem--Major Major Major Major
on
Preview Of Linux 2.5
·
· Score: 1
Start with what? Kernel development? I think the way to start would be:
a) subscribe to linux-kernel mailing list
b) read list
c) work on small patches that get asked for
d) submit patch, learn your code sucks, redo code, resubmit
Least that seems to be the way most people do it:).
If you look at most of the rejected patches it becomes pretty obvious that the #1 reason for rejection is that the patch wasn't submitted until it became large, touched other files, etc. Linus seems like having patches submitted that fix a specific thing doing this with a minimal amount of code that can easily be integrated into the kernel source. If the patch *needs* to be large than a discussion usually pops up on the kernal mailing list and decisions are made. Lets be realistic - most patches are rejected when they are too big, touch too many files, etc... Look at the SGI patches for Apache - same problem. It takes too much time to read the patches, make sure everything is ok with them, and work around the problems.
Personally I think it makes sense to sell Desktop and Server editions. The differences should be:
a) support
b) optimizations in the software
So if I buy a server license I expect to be able to talk to a different tech support desk then if I were to buy a desktop license. What is so wrong with that?
With the optimizations I would expect a desktop version to be shipped with most daemons off and a well tested release of the X Window System along with window managers (kde2, gnome, etc) and applications. The server edition would require more configuration or have a different install script that decided the use of the server (Samba, Web, etc) and configured it for the specific task(s).
So sure Windows 2000 Advanced Server isn't much different than Windows 2000 Professional but you get different levels of support. Windows 2000 Advanced Server also installs by default more configuration tools and includes extras on the installation media (as does Windows 2000 Pro but not as many extras).
Who cares if the software is almost the same? If you're going to buy it and you want support, then you should pay for it. If you don't want support why are you buying it? (of course with windows you don't have a choice but what else is new?).
The interesting part of the email was that Viking was apologising for the pricing mistake, not Amazon.com. Reread it again and see how it is an e-mail from Amazon.com with a quoted e-mail from Viking in the lower half of the body.
Apparently Amazon.com has a system that allows non-Amazon parties to update pricing.
In my experience I've found converting the wav files to mp3 to save quite a bit of space. I use pvftowav without any switches - are you doing something there to make the file size smaller?
I think the whole point is to get away from voice mail. Personally I find voice mail to be completely annoying - it's just a waste of time navigating via a touchpad and not being able to see caller id information, date, and time in a simple list.
I much prefer my vgetty solution with these details and a link for listing to the messages (in mp3 format) over a voice mail system. I prefer to exchange the ease of use of this system over getting messages while I'm on the line.
I agree but if you decide not to use a Zyxel modem (they are expensive) go to the mgetty mailing list and see the archive for modem recommendations. The modem you happen to have sitting around most likey won't work well. I happened to have a Rockwell-based 33.6 voice modem that performs decently at voice (but having problems, going to buy a properly supported one soon).
Unforunately it looks like the mailing list archive is down but they just had a thread on modems recommended for vgetty...
Someone on chi.internet already posted that the installers wanted to put a 25 foot tower on his roof to get his equipment above the neighbors trees. So what's the deal - is non-optical line of sight true?
The worst problem with ICQ is the spam... I signed up for a new account and got ICQ-spammed within minutes! Did I forget to uncheck a box or is it always this bad?
The VCs also encourage out-sourcing because it is "hip" right now and they often have a finger in the pie of the house providing the outsourced service... Never mind that the level of service you actually get will probably suck or that the cost will be higher than doing it in house.
The VCs are out there for one thing: make tons of money and have fun while doing it... Do they really care about the investors who come late to the party? Do they care about actual value? Do you care about sustained growth?
NO! All they care about is hyping the venture to gain initial value so they can cash out. For anyone who has valued the tech market over the last couple years this alone should be obvious. The VCs and underwriters make a *KILLING* on IPOs. Everyone else who invests in these over-hyped ventures is basically screwed.
Is it surprising that we are *in* an ecconomic slowdown after what happened over the last couple years in the tech market?
Just because the tech market is getting hit doesn't mean we are in a depression. There was no way the over valued tech stocks could maintain the false expectations of investors. If the slump hadn't come now it would have been even dirtier in a year or two.
So hopefully the tech market will slump down to actual (instead of hyper-inflated) worth and we'll all continue happily on. Those that invested heavily in the tech market will feel the burn but the rest of the country (and the world) doesn't have to feel the burn too...
(Since you're posting here I'll assume your a geek - here is my geek review of Telocity):
Email is outsourced and sucks (unrealiable, down, etc) - run your own if you don't already...
NNTP (usenet) was awesome but they have cut key people and one of those was their news admin so currently it is falling over but being worked on (speeds are good now but only within the last week, management has required the current people to fix the news server enough so they can get stats on how broken it is so that they can then give them a budget to upgrade it, WTF!).
Network is good when we don't have routing problems - at one point in time we were down for days but lately it has been good. I get a consistent 85-90 Kb/s down (and up) the pipe.
So go ahead and run your own server (which they allow) for email (ideally with a backup mx outside of Telocity for when they go down). They have an offer with on usenet provider to get a free account for a year to make up for the news problems (I haven't tried them yet so no comment).
I don't know - doesn't it look like they dumped millions into the Audrey just to "see what happens"?
I agree about the market aim - the "we" I was speaking of isn't their target market. But it should be apparent at this point in time (after a number of these devices have failed) that it would be best to build a device aimed at more than one segement of the market. Why not make a generic web pad/email for the grannies/dial-up machine that has modules for batteries, modem, ethernet, etc. Of course we *ARE* getting dangerously close to the cost of a laptop but the only way it would be possible is to make an all-in-one that can be manufactured in massive quantities. The difference would be that it isn't upgradeable, doesn't run Windows, etc. So it would be simple (web & email) not a laptop.
But we can't do so much more - we want a little device that we can carry around, not a $300 PC. If the device did have a built-in browser, etc then it would be simple to sell a "plug this in the USB port of your windows PC" and have networking supported that way with access to the net via the host PC. Obviously most of us would us it with our Linux boxes but that doesn't mean you couldn't design a device targeted at the bigger market. There is no reason for one or the other - hit up both!
Slashdot Mirror
Where exactly did you find that on their site? The link works but I can't find anything liking to /download/mirrors!
Anyone got a mirrors list? None on archive.progeny.com AFAIK...
doh!
To a degree I *am* implying you shouldn't complain. You have a choice. Linux or one of the BSDs makes a *great* server operating system that is much more stable than a Windows based server (we all know that is a subjective arguement because a Windows 2000 based server can be very stable in the hands of someone with knowledge - but even then take a look at how many tasks people run on an average *nix based system versus the number on a Win2k server - hint: win2k: 1, *nix: 1 or more). Unfortunately for you *nix is complex. Tough cookies. In my opinion you should just sit down and spend a couple days to learn the basic system. It isn't as complex as you think it is and in terms of power and stability it is far ahead of Windows.
... in a Nutshell doesn't count. I mean, come on now.
I'm breaking the chain. Yes I am. I am.
The more people disagree with Microsofts licensing costs the more likely they are to investigate other platforms. What's not to like?
You're going to fork over the money because Microsoft wants you to. Is that hard to understand? They are running a business and have decided that a server edition is going to cost more than a desktop edition. I can try to justify that by saying the increased cost is to make up for the more knowledgeable people needed in support for a server (as opposed to a desktop) but in reality it doens't matter what I say - Microsoft has decided that you're going to pay more. Don't like that? Don't run Windows!
And what exactly is wrong with this? Sure it sucks but it is their choice. What are you going to do about it?
Why should I be able to choose if I want to pay Microsoft more money or not? You already realistically do make that choice because if you need support you're going to have to pay for it pretty quickly. I agree that required support is completely bizarre but who cares what we think. We are techies. They aren't marketing us - they are marketing our bosses and ultimately our CEO(s).
So why should Microsoft do this for you? Why not continue charging more for the server edition? You're only arguement is that it sucks because it shouldn't be that way, it should be cheaper, etc. Who cares? Microsoft is a business and the license of their software allows them to sell it as they wish.
That's the ticket - try to quesiton the posters intelligence. Come on now - we all know that these choices can be selected during installation, etc.. But why? Microsoft is doing what they want. If you disagree with their practices use something else. Just because you think it is wrong doesn't mean they are going to change!
Ultimately it boils down to this: the addtional cost of a server license over a desktop license for Windows sucks. Well that is great I think - if you are so concerned about this additional cost than other people will be too and they will realize that perhaps Microsoft isn't looking out for them - it is watching the bottom line and making money. You have a choice! Use something else!
(oh, and for the record, I've used RedHat 6.2 extensively, 7.0 a bit, and previous versions not so much - I was using Slackware and FreeBSD around then)
Except as pointed out above (in other thread) you can only have one of these cards in a Sun box so NOBODY HAS A BUNCH OF BOXES FULL OF THESE THINGS!
a) subscribe to linux-kernel mailing list
b) read list
c) work on small patches that get asked for
d) submit patch, learn your code sucks, redo code, resubmit
Least that seems to be the way most people do it :).
If you look at most of the rejected patches it becomes pretty obvious that the #1 reason for rejection is that the patch wasn't submitted until it became large, touched other files, etc. Linus seems like having patches submitted that fix a specific thing doing this with a minimal amount of code that can easily be integrated into the kernel source. If the patch *needs* to be large than a discussion usually pops up on the kernal mailing list and decisions are made. Lets be realistic - most patches are rejected when they are too big, touch too many files, etc... Look at the SGI patches for Apache - same problem. It takes too much time to read the patches, make sure everything is ok with them, and work around the problems.
a) support
b) optimizations in the software
So if I buy a server license I expect to be able to talk to a different tech support desk then if I were to buy a desktop license. What is so wrong with that?
With the optimizations I would expect a desktop version to be shipped with most daemons off and a well tested release of the X Window System along with window managers (kde2, gnome, etc) and applications. The server edition would require more configuration or have a different install script that decided the use of the server (Samba, Web, etc) and configured it for the specific task(s).
So sure Windows 2000 Advanced Server isn't much different than Windows 2000 Professional but you get different levels of support. Windows 2000 Advanced Server also installs by default more configuration tools and includes extras on the installation media (as does Windows 2000 Pro but not as many extras).
Who cares if the software is almost the same? If you're going to buy it and you want support, then you should pay for it. If you don't want support why are you buying it? (of course with windows you don't have a choice but what else is new?).
Apparently Amazon.com has a system that allows non-Amazon parties to update pricing.
In my experience I've found converting the wav files to mp3 to save quite a bit of space. I use pvftowav without any switches - are you doing something there to make the file size smaller?
I think the whole point is to get away from voice mail. Personally I find voice mail to be completely annoying - it's just a waste of time navigating via a touchpad and not being able to see caller id information, date, and time in a simple list. I much prefer my vgetty solution with these details and a link for listing to the messages (in mp3 format) over a voice mail system. I prefer to exchange the ease of use of this system over getting messages while I'm on the line.
I agree but if you decide not to use a Zyxel modem (they are expensive) go to the mgetty mailing list and see the archive for modem recommendations. The modem you happen to have sitting around most likey won't work well. I happened to have a Rockwell-based 33.6 voice modem that performs decently at voice (but having problems, going to buy a properly supported one soon). Unforunately it looks like the mailing list archive is down but they just had a thread on modems recommended for vgetty...
Someone on chi.internet already posted that the installers wanted to put a 25 foot tower on his roof to get his equipment above the neighbors trees. So what's the deal - is non-optical line of sight true?
Before anyone submits this as a new story it's been posted before!
Yahoo IM is much better imho.
The VCs are out there for one thing: make tons of money and have fun while doing it... Do they really care about the investors who come late to the party? Do they care about actual value? Do you care about sustained growth?
NO! All they care about is hyping the venture to gain initial value so they can cash out. For anyone who has valued the tech market over the last couple years this alone should be obvious. The VCs and underwriters make a *KILLING* on IPOs. Everyone else who invests in these over-hyped ventures is basically screwed.
a) you expect *consumer* level service
b) you don't mind running your own email
c) you can live with news sucking
I've been a Telocity subscriber for almost two years now (and no, I don't work for them :->).
Just because the tech market is getting hit doesn't mean we are in a depression. There was no way the over valued tech stocks could maintain the false expectations of investors. If the slump hadn't come now it would have been even dirtier in a year or two.
So hopefully the tech market will slump down to actual (instead of hyper-inflated) worth and we'll all continue happily on. Those that invested heavily in the tech market will feel the burn but the rest of the country (and the world) doesn't have to feel the burn too...
Email is outsourced and sucks (unrealiable, down, etc) - run your own if you don't already...
NNTP (usenet) was awesome but they have cut key people and one of those was their news admin so currently it is falling over but being worked on (speeds are good now but only within the last week, management has required the current people to fix the news server enough so they can get stats on how broken it is so that they can then give them a budget to upgrade it, WTF!).
Network is good when we don't have routing problems - at one point in time we were down for days but lately it has been good. I get a consistent 85-90 Kb/s down (and up) the pipe.
So go ahead and run your own server (which they allow) for email (ideally with a backup mx outside of Telocity for when they go down). They have an offer with on usenet provider to get a free account for a year to make up for the news problems (I haven't tried them yet so no comment).
I agree about the market aim - the "we" I was speaking of isn't their target market. But it should be apparent at this point in time (after a number of these devices have failed) that it would be best to build a device aimed at more than one segement of the market. Why not make a generic web pad/email for the grannies/dial-up machine that has modules for batteries, modem, ethernet, etc. Of course we *ARE* getting dangerously close to the cost of a laptop but the only way it would be possible is to make an all-in-one that can be manufactured in massive quantities. The difference would be that it isn't upgradeable, doesn't run Windows, etc. So it would be simple (web & email) not a laptop.
But we can't do so much more - we want a little device that we can carry around, not a $300 PC. If the device did have a built-in browser, etc then it would be simple to sell a "plug this in the USB port of your windows PC" and have networking supported that way with access to the net via the host PC. Obviously most of us would us it with our Linux boxes but that doesn't mean you couldn't design a device targeted at the bigger market. There is no reason for one or the other - hit up both!