No surprise -/. is no longer a collection of professional IT people.
Anyone who puts software into production on mission critical servers without testing it first is a moron. He should be fired from his IT position. The analogy of "writing their OS from scratch is utterly malapropos.
No understanding of mission critical servers in production. No. You do not upgrade software on mission critical servers in production without having tested it first. Ever. Under any circumstance. Ever. Unless you are a mom-and-pop shop where surfiing for porn is considered mission critical.
failed to gain the latest certificate from the AV-TEST institute
I have a very nice bridge, and it is for sale. For you it has a very nice price. This is a very good deal. You should jump on it right now since it seems your are i a particularly gullible state of mind.
If they used an Excel version that is less than about ten years old, here is what Excel did:
- Drew a nice red rectangle around the range they had actually selected (making it rather obvious one was missing)
- Added a nice warning message that the range looked a little short - very easy to see.
If software does more hand holding than that it becomes impossible to use. This was a moron user too inept to use software that warned him twice and quite clearly.
Properly configuring a windows server with active directory, samba, exchange, etc is not trivial and should not be done by the stereotypical nephew of the SME owner who is good at computers
I agree, but here is the rub. They are going to need to have well trained Windows staff no matter what. There is no escaping Windows since you have to have it on the desktop (for 99% of all enterprise this is true) anyway. So, you can train your staff properly on Windows or you can train them on Windows and Linux both. In reality, a single guy can have complete control of a reasonably sized Windows network with one or two first-line monkeys. Add Linux to the mix and you are complicating it greatly. There is no need for business to complicate anything at all. Since licensing cost, compared to staff and other cost for a company, is small (close to negligible) it is not much of an issue.
Also, to an SME the cost of a windows server license is not trivial
Yes, it is.
I think any small, medium, or large enterprise that does not consider linux
They should, and in most cases, they should not go for a mix of Linux and Windows. Adding complexity, and it is adding complexity no matter what you personally feel when you add multiple operating systems to the mix, is never a good idea. Personnel cost beats licensing cost all the time.
The MS stack scales pretty well these days. IIS is not at the top of the line but neither is it IIS5 or IIS6 which were pretty bad. If you can run the iCloud on Windows Servers (they do) then you can scale on Windows.
free (to deploy and to get the dev tools)
The only thing that is not free for the ASP.NET stack is Windows on the box you develop. Both the stack and the dev tools are free. The express versions of Visual Studio are basically fully functional except for TFS (and a few other minor issues) but I use Git also for my Win development, so that is not an issue.
cross-platform
Mono is coming along quite nicely. I run two.NET MVC sites on Linux/Mono.
(do you really want to be forced to run Windows on your server?
For the majority of enterprise businesses, that is the only thing they do, and they should not even consider thinking about hiring someone to wonder if the should deploy Linux boxes in their business. Anyone small to medium enterprise thinking about putting stuff on Linux should do so in the Cloud, not on premise, but a lot of companies wants or needs their servers on-premise, and the majority of them should use Windows. It's what they know and the training cost alone for putting Linux in place would be a silly investment. Windows just works for most people, and that's good enough.
Yeah, that terrible Microsoft. They have one technology, ASP.NET, which over time loses favor. As does all the similar Web technologies like JSP etc. It turns out that the whole thing with pages and code-behind is a bad idea. Along comes Ruby and Rails, and things change. Microsoft sees that this is a Good Idea(TM) and they make their own similar stuff. As does everybody else. Lots of cross-copying takes place. Microsoft makes the (arguably) best template engine (Razor) and the Java world copies that (Play! Framework).
This is the natural way of things. Only when Microsoft does it it must be evil.
Seems like the mental faculties of the average/. reader is dropping faster than one would expect something sitting in a standard 1G well.
Did you have anything to say about the veracity of what he said, or were you too retarded to do anything more constructive than shooting at the messenger?
Windows 8 sucks so much, it can lift matter back past the event horizon of a black hole.
Just curious about this one. I have used Win8 for a while, and since I am using a desktop computer with no touch screen, it operates and behaves identically to my previous Windows installation, just faster and leaner. I got by with the Start Screen for a little while, but now I am using a Start Button replacement. With that in place, I am certain nobody standing next to me would know I was using Win8, they would think it was Win7 with an odd-looking Start Button.
The fact that I get an ~20% performance increase is a bonus though.
So, since I am obviously missing some huge piece of WIndows 8 here, something that everybody gets when they install it, but I didn't (I upgraded from Windows 7), what specifically is it that is so bad about Win8? If it is the Start Screen that is so bad, why do yo use it? If it is Metro apps that are so bad, why do you use them?
how expensive it is depends heavily on how long you have to get it done, no?
Not really. The deflection isn't particularly expensive, the difference between having lots of time and having little time is more in technique than in cost. Short time might have to entail nuclear explosions or similar, if they can be done properly. Long time means we need a reasonable heavy object, and the cost is mostly centered around lifting the object off the ground and into orbit.
Oh, and in case you wondered, a detection system would cost about $300 million to put in place over the course of about five years. Apparently the US spends (or spent) 66 times that a year (20 billion) on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Simple, minimize exposure, maximize winnings. Chances the earth is going to be hit by a city killer within the next 100 years is around 30%. The cost of one such hit, if it is near coast or on/near an actual city is astronomical both materially and human cost. The investment cost of a detection and deflection system is, comparatively, close to zero. So, given that there is close to zero downside to such an investment and an enormous potential upside, common sense, and all mathematical and economical theory says we should invest.
The interesting thing here is that we only need to invest in detection immediately. We can probably wait with the deflection investment, at least until we know when and where a city killer will hit. This means that we can make the earth comparatively safe (from asteroids) for far less than it costs to build a new wing on a museum or a new bridge to nowhere. That is basically, compared to the potential gain, zero dollars. Not making such an investment is well past insane. Thankfully, private organizations are willing to make the investment where our governments have all failed.
Then we could have colonized a good portion of galaxy in the expected time before we get hit with such an asteroid
We currently can not even imagine a viable way for humans to colonize the galaxy. Think about that. Our best and brightest have so far only been able to come up with theoretical possibilities that aren't even theoretically possible at the moment. So, no, we can not colonize the galaxy in that time, or rather, we can not at the moment think of a way to do it.
Also, remember, city killers hit the earth, not every x millions of years, they hit the earth on average every 200-300 years. This means that every century we are dealing with a 30% risk of getting hit. Again, the cost of detecting these is negligible. Currently, the US population spend about this on Coca Cola products in a single as it would cost to put a detection system in place. The US military spends more on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan in a few days than it takes to put a detection system into space.
So, explain how, something which requires a tiny investment, with a staggering pay-back when (not if) we discover a city killer, should not be done?
Try convincing the public that an asteroid that has a 99% chance of hitting the earth in 150 years is worth spending trillions of dollars on today to launch a probe to deflect it.
No need to spend trillions. Not even billions. Deflection isn't expensive, it would have a lower budget than the air-conditioning budget of the second Iraq war. That's the insanity of the current situation. This is easy. It is cheap. It can be done with current technologies. We're not doing it.
That depends on how much cost you assign to total destruction. There's no reason to make it infinite
Why? From a human (or mammal for that matter) perspective it is. Given the fact that, discovered early enough, deflecting big asteroids is bordering on trivial and actually very, very, very cheap (a few hundred million dollars) - not investing in this is not bordering on, but actually well past the border of insane.
In the same time period we've had seven earthquakes
The probability of something happening in the future is (in these cases) not related to the historical record.
Yes, the really big ones are really scary but our chances of deflecting a dino-killer is bordering on none
If we discover a dino killer in a reasonable time frame prior to impact, chances of deflecting it is equal to our desire to actually invest enough money (perhaps a few hundre million dollars at worst) to actually deflect it. Actually deflecting an asteroid isn't particularly hard if we know where it is an when it is going to hit.
You're chances of dying by being struck by lightning i far, far bigger than death by asteroid
Statistically that's not really true. If a dino killer comes along, and they do with some regularity, then somewhere in the 6 to 10 billion range of people would die, depending on the time of impact. Since the fatality rate will be staggering, chances of any single human dying by asteroid impact at any random day in the timespan from now and until that impact could be rather high.
Even for non-dino killers, it looks like there is about a 30% chance of a city killer hitting us within 100 years. If it hits an actual city of some size, or near by, or in the ocean not too far away from a big city, death toll could reach the upper single digit millions or more. Again, significantly increasing the chance of a random person getting killed by an asteroid to levels well above lightening strikes.
Slashdot Mirror
No surprise - /. is no longer a collection of professional IT people.
Anyone who puts software into production on mission critical servers without testing it first is a moron. He should be fired from his IT position. The analogy of "writing their OS from scratch is utterly malapropos.
No, actual in-dept understanding
No understanding of mission critical servers in production. No. You do not upgrade software on mission critical servers in production without having tested it first. Ever. Under any circumstance. Ever. Unless you are a mom-and-pop shop where surfiing for porn is considered mission critical.
Are you mentally handicapped?
Use enterprise style AV. Can't be disabled by user. Sure, runs on mail server. My bad there. I was thinking web servers etc.
Yep, they both co-existed forever.
Because they assumed Malwarebytes had done that already
Then they are idiots and should not be allowed to manage anything more complicated than their own personal iPads.
AV software (or rather its definition files) has to be updated very fast if it is to have any value at all
On servers? Clueless Rubbish.
failed to gain the latest certificate from the AV-TEST institute
I have a very nice bridge, and it is for sale. For you it has a very nice price. This is a very good deal. You should jump on it right now since it seems your are i a particularly gullible state of mind.
This is considered the leading AV review site in the world
I have a very, very nice bridge for sale, and just for you, I have a very, very good price. You should jump on this, it's a once-in-a-lifetime chance.
That's still Excels fault for
If they used an Excel version that is less than about ten years old, here is what Excel did:
- Drew a nice red rectangle around the range they had actually selected (making it rather obvious one was missing)
- Added a nice warning message that the range looked a little short - very easy to see.
If software does more hand holding than that it becomes impossible to use. This was a moron user too inept to use software that warned him twice and quite clearly.
Properly configuring a windows server with active directory, samba, exchange, etc is not trivial and should not be done by the stereotypical nephew of the SME owner who is good at computers
I agree, but here is the rub. They are going to need to have well trained Windows staff no matter what. There is no escaping Windows since you have to have it on the desktop (for 99% of all enterprise this is true) anyway. So, you can train your staff properly on Windows or you can train them on Windows and Linux both. In reality, a single guy can have complete control of a reasonably sized Windows network with one or two first-line monkeys. Add Linux to the mix and you are complicating it greatly. There is no need for business to complicate anything at all. Since licensing cost, compared to staff and other cost for a company, is small (close to negligible) it is not much of an issue.
Also, to an SME the cost of a windows server license is not trivial
Yes, it is.
I think any small, medium, or large enterprise that does not consider linux
They should, and in most cases, they should not go for a mix of Linux and Windows. Adding complexity, and it is adding complexity no matter what you personally feel when you add multiple operating systems to the mix, is never a good idea. Personnel cost beats licensing cost all the time.
Everything he said is true
OK, just curious...
more scalable
The MS stack scales pretty well these days. IIS is not at the top of the line but neither is it IIS5 or IIS6 which were pretty bad. If you can run the iCloud on Windows Servers (they do) then you can scale on Windows.
free (to deploy and to get the dev tools)
The only thing that is not free for the ASP.NET stack is Windows on the box you develop. Both the stack and the dev tools are free. The express versions of Visual Studio are basically fully functional except for TFS (and a few other minor issues) but I use Git also for my Win development, so that is not an issue.
cross-platform
Mono is coming along quite nicely. I run two .NET MVC sites on Linux/Mono.
(do you really want to be forced to run Windows on your server?
For the majority of enterprise businesses, that is the only thing they do, and they should not even consider thinking about hiring someone to wonder if the should deploy Linux boxes in their business. Anyone small to medium enterprise thinking about putting stuff on Linux should do so in the Cloud, not on premise, but a lot of companies wants or needs their servers on-premise, and the majority of them should use Windows. It's what they know and the training cost alone for putting Linux in place would be a silly investment. Windows just works for most people, and that's good enough.
Yeah, that terrible Microsoft. They have one technology, ASP.NET, which over time loses favor. As does all the similar Web technologies like JSP etc. It turns out that the whole thing with pages and code-behind is a bad idea. Along comes Ruby and Rails, and things change. Microsoft sees that this is a Good Idea(TM) and they make their own similar stuff. As does everybody else. Lots of cross-copying takes place. Microsoft makes the (arguably) best template engine (Razor) and the Java world copies that (Play! Framework).
This is the natural way of things. Only when Microsoft does it it must be evil.
Seems like the mental faculties of the average /. reader is dropping faster than one would expect something sitting in a standard 1G well.
Did you have anything to say about the veracity of what he said, or were you too retarded to do anything more constructive than shooting at the messenger?
You need to go back to school
Here is a ... well coded php mvc framework
That's an oxymoron.
Windows 8 sucks so much, it can lift matter back past the event horizon of a black hole.
Just curious about this one. I have used Win8 for a while, and since I am using a desktop computer with no touch screen, it operates and behaves identically to my previous Windows installation, just faster and leaner. I got by with the Start Screen for a little while, but now I am using a Start Button replacement. With that in place, I am certain nobody standing next to me would know I was using Win8, they would think it was Win7 with an odd-looking Start Button.
The fact that I get an ~20% performance increase is a bonus though.
So, since I am obviously missing some huge piece of WIndows 8 here, something that everybody gets when they install it, but I didn't (I upgraded from Windows 7), what specifically is it that is so bad about Win8? If it is the Start Screen that is so bad, why do yo use it? If it is Metro apps that are so bad, why do you use them?
how expensive it is depends heavily on how long you have to get it done, no?
Not really. The deflection isn't particularly expensive, the difference between having lots of time and having little time is more in technique than in cost. Short time might have to entail nuclear explosions or similar, if they can be done properly. Long time means we need a reasonable heavy object, and the cost is mostly centered around lifting the object off the ground and into orbit.
Oh, and in case you wondered, a detection system would cost about $300 million to put in place over the course of about five years. Apparently the US spends (or spent) 66 times that a year (20 billion) on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why? We have other things we can be investing in
Simple, minimize exposure, maximize winnings. Chances the earth is going to be hit by a city killer within the next 100 years is around 30%. The cost of one such hit, if it is near coast or on/near an actual city is astronomical both materially and human cost. The investment cost of a detection and deflection system is, comparatively, close to zero. So, given that there is close to zero downside to such an investment and an enormous potential upside, common sense, and all mathematical and economical theory says we should invest.
The interesting thing here is that we only need to invest in detection immediately. We can probably wait with the deflection investment, at least until we know when and where a city killer will hit. This means that we can make the earth comparatively safe (from asteroids) for far less than it costs to build a new wing on a museum or a new bridge to nowhere. That is basically, compared to the potential gain, zero dollars. Not making such an investment is well past insane. Thankfully, private organizations are willing to make the investment where our governments have all failed.
Then we could have colonized a good portion of galaxy in the expected time before we get hit with such an asteroid
We currently can not even imagine a viable way for humans to colonize the galaxy. Think about that. Our best and brightest have so far only been able to come up with theoretical possibilities that aren't even theoretically possible at the moment. So, no, we can not colonize the galaxy in that time, or rather, we can not at the moment think of a way to do it.
Also, remember, city killers hit the earth, not every x millions of years, they hit the earth on average every 200-300 years. This means that every century we are dealing with a 30% risk of getting hit. Again, the cost of detecting these is negligible. Currently, the US population spend about this on Coca Cola products in a single as it would cost to put a detection system in place. The US military spends more on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan in a few days than it takes to put a detection system into space.
So, explain how, something which requires a tiny investment, with a staggering pay-back when (not if) we discover a city killer, should not be done?
We're wiping out species at a pace that, in a geological-time sense, is indistinguishable from a big asteroid strike or massive volcanic eruption
Rubbish.
Try convincing the public that an asteroid that has a 99% chance of hitting the earth in 150 years is worth spending trillions of dollars on today to launch a probe to deflect it.
No need to spend trillions. Not even billions. Deflection isn't expensive, it would have a lower budget than the air-conditioning budget of the second Iraq war. That's the insanity of the current situation. This is easy. It is cheap. It can be done with current technologies. We're not doing it.
Government is broken, thankfully we have Ed Lu and the B612 foundation.
That depends on how much cost you assign to total destruction. There's no reason to make it infinite
Why? From a human (or mammal for that matter) perspective it is. Given the fact that, discovered early enough, deflecting big asteroids is bordering on trivial and actually very, very, very cheap (a few hundred million dollars) - not investing in this is not bordering on, but actually well past the border of insane.
In the same time period we've had seven earthquakes
The probability of something happening in the future is (in these cases) not related to the historical record.
Yes, the really big ones are really scary but our chances of deflecting a dino-killer is bordering on none
If we discover a dino killer in a reasonable time frame prior to impact, chances of deflecting it is equal to our desire to actually invest enough money (perhaps a few hundre million dollars at worst) to actually deflect it. Actually deflecting an asteroid isn't particularly hard if we know where it is an when it is going to hit.
You're chances of dying by being struck by lightning i far, far bigger than death by asteroid
Statistically that's not really true. If a dino killer comes along, and they do with some regularity, then somewhere in the 6 to 10 billion range of people would die, depending on the time of impact. Since the fatality rate will be staggering, chances of any single human dying by asteroid impact at any random day in the timespan from now and until that impact could be rather high.
Even for non-dino killers, it looks like there is about a 30% chance of a city killer hitting us within 100 years. If it hits an actual city of some size, or near by, or in the ocean not too far away from a big city, death toll could reach the upper single digit millions or more. Again, significantly increasing the chance of a random person getting killed by an asteroid to levels well above lightening strikes.
Easily fixed if you are not a retard. So, what's the issue? Are you retarded?