Isn't Symantec and these other companies the same ones that started crying when M$ kicked barred everyone from kernel access to make a more secure OS. By default, the fact the M$ allowed them to even run on the OS made the OS less secure.
You wasted your time. I'm a DBA with a programming background. Virtualization is not suitable for mid- to large- database environments. Database software is designed to handle all IO and memory issues internally. The virtualization software just gets in the way.
I currently work in healthcare IT (past 5 years). I used to work in food proccessing (3 years) and for a IT provider for various industries (banking, manufacturing, advertising) for 3 years. Of all the industries, I have to say that Healthcare is the worse. The software that hospitals purchase is extremely buggy. Software providers for IT, bank on the fact that the person making the final decision doesn't have any idea about IT. In other words, the doctors and administrators. Every vendor offers an EMR (Electronic Medical Record) in their software and they are different by company. Government oversight of this industry is desperately needed. If people knew the truth, they would be VERY afraid to go to a hospital.
This is the dumbest post regarding business that I have ever seen. They are buying back the stock because they are going to raise the dividend. Thus creating more cash for themselves. Oh, and their products ARE profitable. How do you think they got the money in the first place.
If you read the article, you would see that businesses and governments can still order the Linux desktop. The reason for this because Lenovo can control what version is on the desktop and write a support agreement to only support certain things. The cost of supporting the Linux distros was probably more than they wanted to bear and decided to cut the cost.
Everyone had to see this coming. If you didn't keep writing code and stay out of the business part. The Yahoo deal (or more like the deal to keep Microsoft out of Yahoo) gives Google even more control over the online advertising arena. The people who stand to lose the most from Google's monopoly is advertising agencies. Not M$. How can I as an advertising agency compete with an entity on the web that has such control over the segment? The interesting thing here is going to be how Google handles the suit. If they are found guilty, they will face record fines. M$ was (and still is) sitting on a tremendous amount of cash. Google isn't. They just have stock value. The DOF doesn't take that for payment.
Man, I hope he knows that they are going to send him to REAL prison. Not any white collar, low security, picket fence prison. But a wash room intercourse, shank in the rec yard, guards are going to torture you prison. Being it's San Francisco, he'll go to San Quentin. Hope it was worth it.
I work in a real industry for a real company. I look at this mess and just laugh. I have to say this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. What is Google anyway besides a website?
Google has NEVER fought to keep any of their customer's information private. The Chinese government made hundreds of arrests after Google handed over people's search patterns. If you want to keep something private, don't use Google.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Microsoft is making a foray into the area that Google is now controlling. So whatever they are doing can be easily influenced by the developers. Also, a lot of Google employees came from MS. People might not like them, but they do employ some of the brightest in the industry. These people are not ego-centric and have to have their names on every website (including Slashdot) to make a difference. They didn't get that large/rich/powerful by having average people doing the work.
The reason for this coming back is that customers asked for it. Many customers have old VB code in documents that they either cannot or will not convert. This gives them a way to regain some functionality.
The answer to that question is not easy. From your post, it sounds like the old web developer had full autonomy to do whatever they wanted as long as they got the job done. Now you're left with a mess that you had to hunt someone down to support. Your decision on the platform that you want should be based on your business needs, environment, and IT resources. I know it's not what you wanted to hear but it is the truth. For example, if you guys are a heavily web based business that needs to crank out a lot of pages for changes often, use Apache as your web server, and have the technical expertise to support java based solutions, then I would probably choose something like PHP. However, if you are a MS based shop that wants to integrate with products like Sharepoint, MS Office, and the technical expertise for such development can be spread to others that are not web developers full time, I would choose the.NET platform. Not pushing one or the other, just stating that you have to look at what you want to do and move ahead.
I work for a healthcare organization in IT. And don't get me wrong, being able to have access to a patients's health records at anytime is very useful (and something the government is working on implementing), this information is very sensitive and Google and Microsoft leave themselves open to numerous lawsuits if there are any issues.
Should a church that profitted from the slave trade, collaborated with the nazis, hid the molestation of children, and is the main reason the US Constitution requires a seperation of church and state be condemning anything?
Thank you for printing this statement. It is amazing how most "technical" people don't understand what a SQL injection attack is and that it is platform independent. These attacks have to be stopped in your front-end development and not in the database engine. If you are writing code that is this unsecure (especially in 2007) then you shouldn't be coding at all.
Also the MDAC was patched more than a year ago. Why weren't the patches applied?
Microsoft (like ATT, IBM, HP, Dupont, etc.,) does research in their fields of endeavor. That is a part of most large organizations budget. They don't release it until it fits into a strategic place for them. That is also SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for most companies. If you want free research go to either Academia. Pay isn't great though.
I will concede it isn't the text book definition of theft (I'm not a lawyer).
Yes, it does take jobs away. MS (or any company that is pirated) does not just employ developers. There are countless consultants, Account Mgrs, etc. that are paid by them. Mainly, it's not about the price of software as more about the revenue lost from pirated copies (another reason I say Techies don't know business). For every missed dollar lost to piracy, that lowers companies revenues (and eventually stock).
Who wouldn't charge as much as they could for a service or product? It's a cornerstone of capitalism. If you think this is wrong, why don't you ask your employer to pay you just enough to sustain you above the poverty level (or actually less). That's all you need to survive.
Taking a copy of software home from a licensed work copy, is not the same as operating a factory pushing out millions of dollars in forgery.
ANY amount of money lost from piracy cuts into a companies bottom line. For every dollar that is lost, it has to be made up somewhere. And where does that normally come from: JOBS. Besides, this is theft.
OK people, let's try to get this on the first try:
SUPPORT COSTS MONEY AND IT IS A UNRECOUPABLE EXPENSE. The less support I have to pay for, the more I can give back to my stock holders, who ultimately run the company and decide the fate of things.
It's easier for them to write/maintain/support the IE install. They don't have to worry about whether or not the installation guy or customer is capable of using IE. I mean let's face it, whom this day and age is not capable of clicking.
Slashdot Mirror
An honest mistake. Wait until they post some companies inter-company information on the public web. Oh wait, they did do that.
Isn't Symantec and these other companies the same ones that started crying when M$ kicked barred everyone from kernel access to make a more secure OS. By default, the fact the M$ allowed them to even run on the OS made the OS less secure.
You wasted your time. I'm a DBA with a programming background. Virtualization is not suitable for mid- to large- database environments. Database software is designed to handle all IO and memory issues internally. The virtualization software just gets in the way.
I currently work in healthcare IT (past 5 years). I used to work in food proccessing (3 years) and for a IT provider for various industries (banking, manufacturing, advertising) for 3 years. Of all the industries, I have to say that Healthcare is the worse. The software that hospitals purchase is extremely buggy. Software providers for IT, bank on the fact that the person making the final decision doesn't have any idea about IT. In other words, the doctors and administrators. Every vendor offers an EMR (Electronic Medical Record) in their software and they are different by company. Government oversight of this industry is desperately needed. If people knew the truth, they would be VERY afraid to go to a hospital.
I work in the power industry with these devices. They are not Windows XP.
This is the dumbest post regarding business that I have ever seen. They are buying back the stock because they are going to raise the dividend. Thus creating more cash for themselves. Oh, and their products ARE profitable. How do you think they got the money in the first place.
If you read the article, you would see that businesses and governments can still order the Linux desktop. The reason for this because Lenovo can control what version is on the desktop and write a support agreement to only support certain things. The cost of supporting the Linux distros was probably more than they wanted to bear and decided to cut the cost.
Everyone had to see this coming. If you didn't keep writing code and stay out of the business part. The Yahoo deal (or more like the deal to keep Microsoft out of Yahoo) gives Google even more control over the online advertising arena. The people who stand to lose the most from Google's monopoly is advertising agencies. Not M$. How can I as an advertising agency compete with an entity on the web that has such control over the segment? The interesting thing here is going to be how Google handles the suit. If they are found guilty, they will face record fines. M$ was (and still is) sitting on a tremendous amount of cash. Google isn't. They just have stock value. The DOF doesn't take that for payment.
Isn't this a great situation for a startup to take on?
Sounds shady to me.
Man, I hope he knows that they are going to send him to REAL prison. Not any white collar, low security, picket fence prison. But a wash room intercourse, shank in the rec yard, guards are going to torture you prison. Being it's San Francisco, he'll go to San Quentin. Hope it was worth it.
I work in a real industry for a real company. I look at this mess and just laugh. I have to say this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. What is Google anyway besides a website?
Google has NEVER fought to keep any of their customer's information private. The Chinese government made hundreds of arrests after Google handed over people's search patterns. If you want to keep something private, don't use Google.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Microsoft is making a foray into the area that Google is now controlling. So whatever they are doing can be easily influenced by the developers. Also, a lot of Google employees came from MS. People might not like them, but they do employ some of the brightest in the industry. These people are not ego-centric and have to have their names on every website (including Slashdot) to make a difference. They didn't get that large/rich/powerful by having average people doing the work.
Just a thought, but wouldn't they have to standardize some OpenOffice in order to offer support?
The reason for this coming back is that customers asked for it. Many customers have old VB code in documents that they either cannot or will not convert. This gives them a way to regain some functionality.
The answer to that question is not easy. From your post, it sounds like the old web developer had full autonomy to do whatever they wanted as long as they got the job done. Now you're left with a mess that you had to hunt someone down to support. Your decision on the platform that you want should be based on your business needs, environment, and IT resources. I know it's not what you wanted to hear but it is the truth. For example, if you guys are a heavily web based business that needs to crank out a lot of pages for changes often, use Apache as your web server, and have the technical expertise to support java based solutions, then I would probably choose something like PHP. However, if you are a MS based shop that wants to integrate with products like Sharepoint, MS Office, and the technical expertise for such development can be spread to others that are not web developers full time, I would choose the .NET platform. Not pushing one or the other, just stating that you have to look at what you want to do and move ahead.
I work for a healthcare organization in IT. And don't get me wrong, being able to have access to a patients's health records at anytime is very useful (and something the government is working on implementing), this information is very sensitive and Google and Microsoft leave themselves open to numerous lawsuits if there are any issues.
Should a church that profitted from the slave trade, collaborated with the nazis, hid the molestation of children, and is the main reason the US Constitution requires a seperation of church and state be condemning anything?
Thank you for printing this statement. It is amazing how most "technical" people don't understand what a SQL injection attack is and that it is platform independent. These attacks have to be stopped in your front-end development and not in the database engine. If you are writing code that is this unsecure (especially in 2007) then you shouldn't be coding at all. Also the MDAC was patched more than a year ago. Why weren't the patches applied?
Microsoft (like ATT, IBM, HP, Dupont, etc.,) does research in their fields of endeavor. That is a part of most large organizations budget. They don't release it until it fits into a strategic place for them. That is also SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for most companies. If you want free research go to either Academia. Pay isn't great though.
I'm sure knowing that it is so popular with you will sway the market.
I will concede it isn't the text book definition of theft (I'm not a lawyer). Yes, it does take jobs away. MS (or any company that is pirated) does not just employ developers. There are countless consultants, Account Mgrs, etc. that are paid by them. Mainly, it's not about the price of software as more about the revenue lost from pirated copies (another reason I say Techies don't know business). For every missed dollar lost to piracy, that lowers companies revenues (and eventually stock). Who wouldn't charge as much as they could for a service or product? It's a cornerstone of capitalism. If you think this is wrong, why don't you ask your employer to pay you just enough to sustain you above the poverty level (or actually less). That's all you need to survive. Taking a copy of software home from a licensed work copy, is not the same as operating a factory pushing out millions of dollars in forgery.
ANY amount of money lost from piracy cuts into a companies bottom line. For every dollar that is lost, it has to be made up somewhere. And where does that normally come from: JOBS. Besides, this is theft.
OK people, let's try to get this on the first try: SUPPORT COSTS MONEY AND IT IS A UNRECOUPABLE EXPENSE. The less support I have to pay for, the more I can give back to my stock holders, who ultimately run the company and decide the fate of things. It's easier for them to write/maintain/support the IE install. They don't have to worry about whether or not the installation guy or customer is capable of using IE. I mean let's face it, whom this day and age is not capable of clicking.