Yep, that's making me remember a bit. It was Netware 3.
I do remember that 4.x came in sometime around when (maybe a little before, maybe a little after) I switched jobs and went to a huge NT shop. I never did any work on 4.x or later.
"Believe me Novell is dominate in every Fortune 100 company out there."
I'm not quite sure I follow you...what do you mean? I'm sure you aren't saying that it is the most predominantly used network server technology in the Fortune 100, are you?
I'm not trying to argue, seriously. Just trying to figure out exactly what you mean.
Cutting through my drunken haze (no, I'm not kidding), I recall that we were definately not on 4.x Netware. Was 3.x something. Still had these crappy DOS tools, navigating around them with the keyboard.
Seriously, like I said, it was a while back, and while I was using the latest version of NT, I might not have even been using the latest version of Netware. Don't really know. Don't really care all that much.:)
I don't actually get all bent out of shape over software-vs-software battles.:) Got better things to worry about.
1: Invest in companies that are doing very well, and have a stock with strong funamentals. 2: Do not care about whether or not you like the company. 3: PROFIT! 4: Give some of that profit to charitable organizations that you DO believe in.
You won't accomplish much in the grand scheme of things by buying stock in a company you believe in. Unless it is an IPO, you aren't really providing them capital to grow and invest with. You are just buying shares that someone else had before you. Don't mix up business with personal feelings. Make money with business, and satisfy your personal feelings by giving away some of that money.
selling a Linux distro. Novell has done some dumb things before, but saying "Hey, I've got an idea! Let's try to get rich SELLING a Linux distro!" would be the dumbest.
LOL! Yep, I have forgotten a lot, that's for sure! (In "old man" voice): I remember the good ole' days, of being the young whippersnapper at a big IT shop. Although, its been a while, and I hardly consider myself "young" anymore. (Cue dramatic violin music here...)
I agree with you there. I really like Suse, too. The software install/uninstall/update in YAST has a lot going for it.
Although...they do take a long time to get patches deployed via YAST. I did look at a list onetime of the average time-to-patch-release of different Linux distro's. Suse was pretty low (meaning, actually, that they were "high" on the list, in terms of the # of days to wait) on the list.
Where I was working, system requirements weren't really an issue. And I didn't find one to be more stable than the other, although that isn't saying much.
I wouldn't say it was the "GUI". But overall, yes, I found NT to be much better to manage a large network with than the tools in Netware. It isn't just the GUI tools. It was a lot of things about the product architecture itself.
Like I said, that was a long time ago (10 years; think of how much has changed in the IT world in the past 10 years). I had just gotten out of school, and was only on my 2nd IT job. I was just getting started. At the time, I DEFINATELY preferred working on an NT network over Netware.
Netware didn't just fail "with more than a little help from Microsoft". It failed because (and it kills me to say this), Windows NT was a better product than Netware in just about any way imaginable. I remember when I made the switch in my career from Netware to NT. I can't think of anything that Netware did better than Windows NT. Netware pretty much sucked ass...
I must admit that it was very early in my IT career that I made this switch. Perhaps my inexperience in Netware had something to do with my opinion of it.
Actually, there are multiple reasons for the cost of healthcare. Corporate greed is part of it, but not all.
I disagree with you on the way that the world should work. I don't WANT socialized medical care. I prefer that I am left on my own in the world, and I work and make my own decisions on my healthcare. I don't want government forcing a social program on me. People have different views of what "freedom" means. To me, a big part of freedom is being free from high taxation and forced social programs. And I have thought that all my life, even when I was a FLAT BROKE college student.
I also disagree that the example you gave can serve as proof of wrongdoing in other areas. Picking one specific example related to healthcare has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Mark Cuban deserves the money he has, and whether or not he obtained it through illicit activities.
Forgive me if this has already been asked and answered 72 times. It's too late and I'm too tired to read through this whole topic.:)
Are there laws regarding log retention? What if a site does a very poor or non-existent job at storing logs? What if the site only stores logs for 48 hours? When the FBI comes calling and says "Give me the logs", what happens if the site owner honestly replies "But I don't have those logs. I only keep 48 hours' worth of logs."?
What is so inherently wrong about the content producers making a lot of money? As long as they aren't making it by something that is unethical (and I don't consider it unethical simply to sell things instead of giving them away), what is wrong with it? If they are doing something evil and bad and wrong, then I agree with you. But simply making a lot of money is not inherently wrong.
Maybe that's something for you to think about. Perhaps these "plutocrats" aren't always the terrible people that some stereotype them to be. Just food for thought.:)
I admit I didn't fully RTFA, because, ironically, I am REALLY tired from being at a computer all day.
But did they really measure the problem accurately? They claim it hurts learning, but how are they measuring that? Are they measuring what really matters?
I almost flunked out of high school because I was on my computer at home all the time. But now, I work in computers for a living and have an income far beyond the US average.
So what if I had trouble in some early-American literature class? So what if I hated biology and barely passed it? So what if I could barely drag myself to some corny creative composition class? I was learning a lot while spending all my time on the computer. I still do. I think I'm a lot smarter than most of the "A" students I went to school with. I bet I'm making more money than most of them, too.
I think the study possibly approaches the problem from the perspective that learning can only happen in a classroom, that the things taught in a classroom are the only things worth learning, and that taking tests in a classroom is the only way to measure learning. I disagree. Severely. But then, I could have RTFA more carefully.
Done ranting. Going to pull myself from the computer and collapse now.
One of the main reasons I hate the media is their arrogance. They think that they alone have the means to investigate a matter and come to a truthful conclusion. But they are just journalists. Most of them do have any special training in the matters on which they are reporting. Meaning that there are others that may be more qualified to comment on the issue at hand.
A great example is issues relating to computers. How many Slashdot readers like myself constantly groan at the oversimplications and innacuracies in news stories related to the subject of computers? Especially when it comes to security. But those in the media look down on us, as if we have no right to dare suggest that we have more expertise than the media.
I remember, during the Dan Rather "memogate" issue, a CBS exec saying that there was no comparison between his professional journalists and bloggers who are at home "in their pajamas." Oh really? What if that blogger worked in law enforcement, and had decades of experience investigating forged documents? Would you STILL think that a journalist is more qualified to comment on those documents than that particular blogger? Why the blanket assumption that EVERYONE in the media are mmore qualified to discuss an issue than EVERYONE who is not?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, that's making me remember a bit. It was Netware 3.
I do remember that 4.x came in sometime around when (maybe a little before, maybe a little after) I switched jobs and went to a huge NT shop. I never did any work on 4.x or later.
"Believe me Novell is dominate in every Fortune 100 company out there."
I'm not quite sure I follow you...what do you mean? I'm sure you aren't saying that it is the most predominantly used network server technology in the Fortune 100, are you?
I'm not trying to argue, seriously. Just trying to figure out exactly what you mean.
Cutting through my drunken haze (no, I'm not kidding), I recall that we were definately not on 4.x Netware. Was 3.x something. Still had these crappy DOS tools, navigating around them with the keyboard.
Man, do I feel old now...
Geez, dude. Chill out! It's just SOFTWARE! :)
:)
:) Got better things to worry about.
Seriously, like I said, it was a while back, and while I was using the latest version of NT, I might not have even been using the latest version of Netware. Don't really know. Don't really care all that much.
I don't actually get all bent out of shape over software-vs-software battles.
Try this approach instead...
1: Invest in companies that are doing very well, and have a stock with strong funamentals.
2: Do not care about whether or not you like the company.
3: PROFIT!
4: Give some of that profit to charitable organizations that you DO believe in.
You won't accomplish much in the grand scheme of things by buying stock in a company you believe in. Unless it is an IPO, you aren't really providing them capital to grow and invest with. You are just buying shares that someone else had before you. Don't mix up business with personal feelings. Make money with business, and satisfy your personal feelings by giving away some of that money.
It may suck, but that's the way the world is...
selling a Linux distro. Novell has done some dumb things before, but saying "Hey, I've got an idea! Let's try to get rich SELLING a Linux distro!" would be the dumbest.
17 just isn't enough. :)
Debian on the server, and Suse on the desktops/laptops. That'll work for me.
;-)
Or have I just had too much to drink tonight? (I have, BTW...)
Ummm...yeah...what he said!!! :)
I do agree with you, 100%. Suse rocks. Very polished, refined distro. And YAST kicks ass.
LOL! Yep, I have forgotten a lot, that's for sure! (In "old man" voice): I remember the good ole' days, of being the young whippersnapper at a big IT shop. Although, its been a while, and I hardly consider myself "young" anymore. (Cue dramatic violin music here...)
I agree with you there. I really like Suse, too. The software install/uninstall/update in YAST has a lot going for it.
Although...they do take a long time to get patches deployed via YAST. I did look at a list onetime of the average time-to-patch-release of different Linux distro's. Suse was pretty low (meaning, actually, that they were "high" on the list, in terms of the # of days to wait) on the list.
It could have also just been the versions of the products I was using. Who knows. It's been a LONG time now...
Where I was working, system requirements weren't really an issue. And I didn't find one to be more stable than the other, although that isn't saying much.
I wouldn't say it was the "GUI". But overall, yes, I found NT to be much better to manage a large network with than the tools in Netware. It isn't just the GUI tools. It was a lot of things about the product architecture itself.
Like I said, that was a long time ago (10 years; think of how much has changed in the IT world in the past 10 years). I had just gotten out of school, and was only on my 2nd IT job. I was just getting started. At the time, I DEFINATELY preferred working on an NT network over Netware.
Netware didn't just fail "with more than a little help from Microsoft". It failed because (and it kills me to say this), Windows NT was a better product than Netware in just about any way imaginable. I remember when I made the switch in my career from Netware to NT. I can't think of anything that Netware did better than Windows NT. Netware pretty much sucked ass...
I must admit that it was very early in my IT career that I made this switch. Perhaps my inexperience in Netware had something to do with my opinion of it.
Ah, okay. I get your meaning now. Yes, I agree with you on that. :)
Actually, there are multiple reasons for the cost of healthcare. Corporate greed is part of it, but not all.
I disagree with you on the way that the world should work. I don't WANT socialized medical care. I prefer that I am left on my own in the world, and I work and make my own decisions on my healthcare. I don't want government forcing a social program on me. People have different views of what "freedom" means. To me, a big part of freedom is being free from high taxation and forced social programs. And I have thought that all my life, even when I was a FLAT BROKE college student.
I also disagree that the example you gave can serve as proof of wrongdoing in other areas. Picking one specific example related to healthcare has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Mark Cuban deserves the money he has, and whether or not he obtained it through illicit activities.
Forgive me if this has already been asked and answered 72 times. It's too late and I'm too tired to read through this whole topic. :)
Are there laws regarding log retention? What if a site does a very poor or non-existent job at storing logs? What if the site only stores logs for 48 hours? When the FBI comes calling and says "Give me the logs", what happens if the site owner honestly replies "But I don't have those logs. I only keep 48 hours' worth of logs."?
What is so inherently wrong about the content producers making a lot of money? As long as they aren't making it by something that is unethical (and I don't consider it unethical simply to sell things instead of giving them away), what is wrong with it? If they are doing something evil and bad and wrong, then I agree with you. But simply making a lot of money is not inherently wrong.
Maybe that's something for you to think about. Perhaps these "plutocrats" aren't always the terrible people that some stereotype them to be. Just food for thought. :)
I admit I didn't fully RTFA, because, ironically, I am REALLY tired from being at a computer all day.
But did they really measure the problem accurately? They claim it hurts learning, but how are they measuring that? Are they measuring what really matters?
I almost flunked out of high school because I was on my computer at home all the time. But now, I work in computers for a living and have an income far beyond the US average.
So what if I had trouble in some early-American literature class? So what if I hated biology and barely passed it? So what if I could barely drag myself to some corny creative composition class? I was learning a lot while spending all my time on the computer. I still do. I think I'm a lot smarter than most of the "A" students I went to school with. I bet I'm making more money than most of them, too.
I think the study possibly approaches the problem from the perspective that learning can only happen in a classroom, that the things taught in a classroom are the only things worth learning, and that taking tests in a classroom is the only way to measure learning. I disagree. Severely. But then, I could have RTFA more carefully.
Done ranting. Going to pull myself from the computer and collapse now.
http://www.itaa.org/taxfinance/fedexctx.htm
One of the main reasons I hate the media is their arrogance. They think that they alone have the means to investigate a matter and come to a truthful conclusion. But they are just journalists. Most of them do have any special training in the matters on which they are reporting. Meaning that there are others that may be more qualified to comment on the issue at hand.
A great example is issues relating to computers. How many Slashdot readers like myself constantly groan at the oversimplications and innacuracies in news stories related to the subject of computers? Especially when it comes to security. But those in the media look down on us, as if we have no right to dare suggest that we have more expertise than the media.
I remember, during the Dan Rather "memogate" issue, a CBS exec saying that there was no comparison between his professional journalists and bloggers who are at home "in their pajamas." Oh really? What if that blogger worked in law enforcement, and had decades of experience investigating forged documents? Would you STILL think that a journalist is more qualified to comment on those documents than that particular blogger? Why the blanket assumption that EVERYONE in the media are mmore qualified to discuss an issue than EVERYONE who is not?
The arrogance of the media is unbelievable.