True. But when setting up a system, the critical question once the users say no downtime is acceptable, is "and how exactly are we to pay for the infrastructure to do that?" Unsurprisingly, the uptime expectation drops pretty significantly right then.
Useless. It requires intended visitors to add additional root DNS servers, something an average user will not/can not do. Besides, if they "challenge the established power" too much, the US government will just demand Public Interest Registry revoke their.org.
Yes it can. The US Government owns property outside its jurisdiction just like any other government. That property is subject to seizure in the event of a judgement against them in that foreign jurisdiction unless the US government defends itself, or files a statement of no jurisdiction with that foreign court (which has the possibility of being rejected by the foreign court if it finds that there is in fact a crime or civil case to answer in that jurisdiction).
And, um, there is precedent for seizing assets of a private individual or company for the actions of their government if all else fails - go look up Merck for more on that.
No, they're generic TLDs. The US government seizes them by going directly to the registry (not the registrar!) and forcing Verisign to fudge the DNS in the com. zone directly. It's a hideous violation of procedure, and breach of trust, and could be performed just as easily by forcing ICANN to fudge DNS in the . zone just as easily to seize domains in ccTLDs. No-one is safe from domain seizures by ICE. Not even an ru.
What are you even talking about? Microsoft's Mac Business Unit is largely recognised as the largest third party Mac developer in the world. Where you get "hasn't made a practice of writing code for other environments" I'll never understand.
You know the ActiveX control in question was XMLHTTPRequest right? As in, the FIRST XHR? It was kind of necessary at the time, and thank fuck that standards bodies and other browser vendors actually picked up on that and made it happen in a cross-platform fashion.
You should see Safari. On OS X, you have a 50/50 chance of it simply vanishing when you open a new tab. Most unstable piece of shit I've encountered on the Mac. It doesn't hang as often as iTunes though.
The first one was a Microsoft subsidiary (Danger - ironic), and most sane people who aren't looking for knee-jerk reasons to hate the parent company recognise that this does not actually reflect to the same extent on the actions of the parent company. The second is completely fucking irrelevant.
Go look up the meaning of antitrust. Monopoly conduct is only part of it - also covered is anti-competitive actions by any company, even in a saturated market.
Dismiss anyone who suggests Sharepoint at all. I'm the Sharepoint administrator where I work and I constantly yell at people that Sharepoint is a collaboration tool, not a goddamn file store. Every version of every file you store in that damn document library is saved as a giant blob column in a single giant database table shared among every single file in a Sharepoint web application. Even Microsoft engineers recommend you get files out of Sharepoint as soon as they need to be archived.
In other words, they want someone nothing like you since the OP specifically said they didn't want someone who treats the *NIX/Windows as a holy war, and you gave away your side of that when you spouted the shit about "embrace extend extinguish".
Besides, everyone knows Oracle invented embrace extend extinguish. Except that for them the second word is acquire.
13. What is the name of the DE? (explore.exe, there are other DE's and shells. Aero, the 3D explore.exe since Vista also supports plugins for desktop effects, like Compiz, since Vista).
This question and answer are completely fucking wrong. Aero is not another name for "the 3D explore.exe since Vista" (it's explorer.exe, with an r, by the way). Aero is the name of the theme presented by the Desktop Window Manager (which, by the way, is dwm.exe)
You yourself just proved that you don't fit the requirements too - the fastest way to automate stupidly repetitive tasks is PowerShell. Hell, it's the fastest way to automate some hideously complex tasks too (i.e. Exchange management, or SharePoint management).
That actually means their UNIX experts are the wrong people too. Ideally, you do want someone who fits into the team, and while being technically competent has the ability to learn (on their own - you shouldn't have to train your staff to get them to learn things) any new technologies. These are the type of people that when faced with a gap in their knowledge will attempt to seek the answer and plug the gap, rather than fall back on "don't know how to do it, hire a contractor" or "send me on expensive training".
Contrary to popular belief, rebooting is often the last resort these days. If our patient management system is playing up, the person who starts off by saying "rebootderrp" is going to get a good hard long look at and probably a chewing out. Rebooting is very rarely an acceptable solution to business groups.
That's not necessarily true that they want as many as possible. For the Microsoft Certified Master/Architect tracks for example, there are so few of them in the entire world that Microsoft can list them all by name on one page, and most of them are marked with affiliation "Microsoft". This is probably because the exam isn't some theory on paper but a huge practical lab exercise, similar to CCIE (which are again rare).
(Amusingly, GoDaddy is one of the few companies in the US with SQL Server MCMs)
You shot all your credibility when you injected your Linux fanboy mentality into your argument. Many corporates worth their salt happen to use Windows and OS X servers. My ISP's billing and account management system is running on OS X server. My employer's core systems all run on Windows Server (appropriately secured and managed, of course). There is nothing wrong with either of those configurations. Our virtualisation infrastructure is vSphere, in case you were wondering. VirtualBox does not meet our requirements, including around vendor support (VirtualBox has none), and we have a shit-ton more than "a couple of instances".
No, there's no host OS, only the hypervisor. Once the Linux kernel (vmkernel) bootstraps ESXi, vmkernel itself gets contained into a VM which operates as a sort of control session. That's how I've heard it explained anyway. No host Linux at all.
And of course, you have no evidence of your backdoor claim, so you just shot all your credibility in one fell swoop.
EMC's newest strategy appears to be to purchase a company, then retire it and rebrand the products as VMware (with an appropriately confusing massive markup). We just had our helpdesk solution ripped out from under us this way.
OpenVZ does not compare to ESXi at all. It doesn't perform the same task by any stretch of the term - it is a container virtualisation solution, which involves running one copy of the OS with containers running within it. Most commercial software you'll encounter in the enterprise (exempting web hosting providers) does not officially support this configuration. Also, OpenVZ comes with no support, which is a necessity for the enterprise. You could get Parallels Bare Metal Virtualisation if you wanted support, but Parallels leaves a bad taste in many admins' mouth.
I'm hoping that by being *sensible* about the term of protection, those who might otherwise have opted to simply download a copy (it won't be DRMed) without paying the paltry sum being asked, will think again about doing so.
We're not talking a literary work on the scale of Dickens -- but I do expect that it is something which the public domain will benefit from in a few years time (whether it sells in quantity or not) so I'm not going to be stupid about my use of copyright protection.
Slashdot Mirror
True. But when setting up a system, the critical question once the users say no downtime is acceptable, is "and how exactly are we to pay for the infrastructure to do that?" Unsurprisingly, the uptime expectation drops pretty significantly right then.
Useless. It requires intended visitors to add additional root DNS servers, something an average user will not/can not do. Besides, if they "challenge the established power" too much, the US government will just demand Public Interest Registry revoke their .org.
Iran would be a bad example. The US once knocked their entire ccTLD off the internet by going to ICANN, who is on US soil.
Yes it can. The US Government owns property outside its jurisdiction just like any other government. That property is subject to seizure in the event of a judgement against them in that foreign jurisdiction unless the US government defends itself, or files a statement of no jurisdiction with that foreign court (which has the possibility of being rejected by the foreign court if it finds that there is in fact a crime or civil case to answer in that jurisdiction).
And, um, there is precedent for seizing assets of a private individual or company for the actions of their government if all else fails - go look up Merck for more on that.
No, they're generic TLDs. The US government seizes them by going directly to the registry (not the registrar!) and forcing Verisign to fudge the DNS in the com. zone directly. It's a hideous violation of procedure, and breach of trust, and could be performed just as easily by forcing ICANN to fudge DNS in the . zone just as easily to seize domains in ccTLDs. No-one is safe from domain seizures by ICE. Not even an ru.
What are you even talking about? Microsoft's Mac Business Unit is largely recognised as the largest third party Mac developer in the world. Where you get "hasn't made a practice of writing code for other environments" I'll never understand.
You know the ActiveX control in question was XMLHTTPRequest right? As in, the FIRST XHR? It was kind of necessary at the time, and thank fuck that standards bodies and other browser vendors actually picked up on that and made it happen in a cross-platform fashion.
You should see Safari. On OS X, you have a 50/50 chance of it simply vanishing when you open a new tab. Most unstable piece of shit I've encountered on the Mac. It doesn't hang as often as iTunes though.
The first one was a Microsoft subsidiary (Danger - ironic), and most sane people who aren't looking for knee-jerk reasons to hate the parent company recognise that this does not actually reflect to the same extent on the actions of the parent company. The second is completely fucking irrelevant.
Go look up the meaning of antitrust. Monopoly conduct is only part of it - also covered is anti-competitive actions by any company, even in a saturated market.
Are you intentionally dense? This was even covered on fucking Slashdot.
Dismiss anyone who suggests Sharepoint at all. I'm the Sharepoint administrator where I work and I constantly yell at people that Sharepoint is a collaboration tool, not a goddamn file store. Every version of every file you store in that damn document library is saved as a giant blob column in a single giant database table shared among every single file in a Sharepoint web application. Even Microsoft engineers recommend you get files out of Sharepoint as soon as they need to be archived.
In other words, they want someone nothing like you since the OP specifically said they didn't want someone who treats the *NIX/Windows as a holy war, and you gave away your side of that when you spouted the shit about "embrace extend extinguish".
Besides, everyone knows Oracle invented embrace extend extinguish. Except that for them the second word is acquire.
And you can't just user GPO folder redirection to send the My Documents folder to H: why exactly?
13. What is the name of the DE? (explore.exe, there are other DE's and shells. Aero, the 3D explore.exe since Vista also supports plugins for desktop effects, like Compiz, since Vista).
This question and answer are completely fucking wrong. Aero is not another name for "the 3D explore.exe since Vista" (it's explorer.exe, with an r, by the way). Aero is the name of the theme presented by the Desktop Window Manager (which, by the way, is dwm.exe)
You yourself just proved that you don't fit the requirements too - the fastest way to automate stupidly repetitive tasks is PowerShell. Hell, it's the fastest way to automate some hideously complex tasks too (i.e. Exchange management, or SharePoint management).
That actually means their UNIX experts are the wrong people too. Ideally, you do want someone who fits into the team, and while being technically competent has the ability to learn (on their own - you shouldn't have to train your staff to get them to learn things) any new technologies. These are the type of people that when faced with a gap in their knowledge will attempt to seek the answer and plug the gap, rather than fall back on "don't know how to do it, hire a contractor" or "send me on expensive training".
Contrary to popular belief, rebooting is often the last resort these days. If our patient management system is playing up, the person who starts off by saying "rebootderrp" is going to get a good hard long look at and probably a chewing out. Rebooting is very rarely an acceptable solution to business groups.
That's not necessarily true that they want as many as possible. For the Microsoft Certified Master/Architect tracks for example, there are so few of them in the entire world that Microsoft can list them all by name on one page, and most of them are marked with affiliation "Microsoft". This is probably because the exam isn't some theory on paper but a huge practical lab exercise, similar to CCIE (which are again rare).
(Amusingly, GoDaddy is one of the few companies in the US with SQL Server MCMs)
You shot all your credibility when you injected your Linux fanboy mentality into your argument. Many corporates worth their salt happen to use Windows and OS X servers. My ISP's billing and account management system is running on OS X server. My employer's core systems all run on Windows Server (appropriately secured and managed, of course). There is nothing wrong with either of those configurations. Our virtualisation infrastructure is vSphere, in case you were wondering. VirtualBox does not meet our requirements, including around vendor support (VirtualBox has none), and we have a shit-ton more than "a couple of instances".
No, there's no host OS, only the hypervisor. Once the Linux kernel (vmkernel) bootstraps ESXi, vmkernel itself gets contained into a VM which operates as a sort of control session. That's how I've heard it explained anyway. No host Linux at all.
And of course, you have no evidence of your backdoor claim, so you just shot all your credibility in one fell swoop.
EMC's newest strategy appears to be to purchase a company, then retire it and rebrand the products as VMware (with an appropriately confusing massive markup). We just had our helpdesk solution ripped out from under us this way.
OpenVZ does not compare to ESXi at all. It doesn't perform the same task by any stretch of the term - it is a container virtualisation solution, which involves running one copy of the OS with containers running within it. Most commercial software you'll encounter in the enterprise (exempting web hosting providers) does not officially support this configuration. Also, OpenVZ comes with no support, which is a necessity for the enterprise. You could get Parallels Bare Metal Virtualisation if you wanted support, but Parallels leaves a bad taste in many admins' mouth.
So no, OpenVZ isn't an option.
Good idea. Have them tried by Microsoft, IBM, HP, Oracle, and a couple of others.
Judge: And how do you find?
Foreman: Hang them both.
I'm hoping that by being *sensible* about the term of protection, those who might otherwise have opted to simply download a copy (it won't be DRMed) without paying the paltry sum being asked, will think again about doing so.
We're not talking a literary work on the scale of Dickens -- but I do expect that it is something which the public domain will benefit from in a few years time (whether it sells in quantity or not) so I'm not going to be stupid about my use of copyright protection.
Sadly, I believe you will be disappointed.