I reside in Georgia, and I have in fact carried my sidearm in plain view on MARTA and in the public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson.
I'm somewhat dubious that you carried openly in an airport unless you were wearing a uniform at the time or this was a LONG time ago. However even if you did I have to ask, WHY? Nobody is going to attack you in an airport that you are going to be able to defend against and it's about as secure a location as you are likely to be in. Your sidearm at best is NO help at all and at worst could cause a huge problem. I don't have any problem at all with people transporting their unloaded firearms though airports but if you brought a loaded firearm into an airport in the current security environment we should have heard your arrest report on the evening news. I say this even if what you did was perfectly legal. Actions like that are what gives thugs like the TSA the excuse they need to behave badly.
You can be as dubious as you want. Back in 2008, the Georgia legislature cleaned up our gun laws and brought us out of the Jim Crow era when it comes to firearms statutes.. Part of the bill that cleaned it up allowed legally licensed firearms holders to carry their weapons on public transportation and into the public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson. Initially, the Atlanta mayor, Shirley Franklin, opposed the law and vowed to jail anyone who brought a firearm into the airport. There was a federal lawsuit filed against the mayor and the airport manager to force them to follow the law. In 2010, Mayor Franklin's successor, Kasim Reed, decided he was going to go ahead and follow Georgia state law, though he was unhappy about it, and rescinded the ban on guns at the airport.
My carrying in the airport was not a statement of pro-gun activity, or doing it just because I could, it came about quite accidentally. I was in Chattanooga, and my car died. It was late enough that I couldn't get a rental, and I had to be back in Atlanta the following morning. I took a shuttle bus from Chattanooga to Hartsfield and rented a car at the airport. I'd had my firearm with me in Tennessee, as there are reciprocity agreements between TN and GA respecting each others firearms licenses. What was I going to do? Leave my firearm in my car unattended for several days? That is highly irresponsible.
Now please note, it's legal to carry at Hartsfield only in the *PUBLIC* areas of the terminal. I did not pass security, as that is still quite illegal. However, I was not stopped or hassled by any security at the airport (and honestly, I was expecting to be). I know this fucks with your perception of reality, but believe it or not, there are states and people out there who do not demonize those who would exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
Believe it or not, I wouldn't have a problem paying for that feature as a matter of principle.
What I will not do is pay a premium for it for the simple reason that I don't drink. That's just throwing money away. I'd be willing to pay for it if having the feature would lower my insurance premiums, thereby making it a wash in the capital cost (and even a gain, long term, if I keep the vehicle long enough). As of yet, I do not believe that's the case.
The other issue is that I would need to be absolutely certain that the vehicle was not storing any history and that the results of any individual start up would not be available to any entity, ever. I have enough shit spying on me already, don't need my car doing it as well.
The one thing folks can never be free of is human nature, whether their own or that of another.
Civility is only accomplished by the mutual agreement of all participants. Not everyone is willing to participate.
I agree with you in that it would be ideal to not have a need at all, but there hasn't been a society in the history of the world that has been free from a criminal or oppressive element.
However, I have to live in the real world where there are people who are more than willing to do me and mine harm if presented with the opportunity. I choose to eliminate the possibility of becoming a victim as much as I possibly can.
And on gun control in America...it's high time owners will have to pay for psychological evaluation, mandatory handling training and be limited to one firearm per person. A handgun should be the maximum any person should be able to buy. Not sure how America is better with so many gun owners...I certainly think it needs less guns, less gun owners and less guns per owner. -I know call me a commie conspirator.
You do understand that the only people gun control has any effect on are the law abiding citizens and they're the least likely to commit gun crimes, yes? In order to get my permit, I had to give up my fingerprints. My local sheriff's department, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the federal NICS system all have my prints on file. If I screw up, they know who I am, whether it's gun related or not. That provides some massive incentive to not step out of line. It doesn't matter how restrictive you make the laws, a criminal is *not* going to give a shit, so the only thing you're doing is making it easier for armed criminals. Do you honestly believe Columbine, or Virgina Tech, or Sandy Hook would have been as nasty as they were if the law abiding folk had been able to defend themselves? You want to fix the problem of crazy people shooting up schools? Allow the teachers (and students, for colleges) to carry their legal firearms onto the premises.
Secondly - ask any law enforcement professional or military combatant how reliable having only one firearm is and whether they would ever consider sacrificing their backup. If you're willing to allow for firearms for personal protection, you should be willing to allow that we should be able to have at least as much protection.
Thirdly - (and to destroy any credibility I might have!) We may want to at one point or another have another Revolution. If we disarm ourselves due to blind stupidity and general fear, that will be rather difficult. (I wish I could say I was joking, but the way things have been going....)
The worst atrocities in history have been committed by people with weapons against people without. There's a reason that the adage about those who ignore history being doomed to repeat it is an *old* adage.
The better alternative is to educate children on the fact that guns are dangerous.
One of my friends tells the story of how her dad educated her on the dangers of guns.
When she was a little girl, one day he came and got her and her favorite stuffed animal, a big floppy bear.
He nailed the bear to a tree.
And then he shot it at relatively close range with a 12 gauge on full choke. The bear pretty much exploded.
Cruel? Undeniably so (her dad is kind of an asshole). Effective? Damn straight.
While I certainly wouldn't advocate for doing possibly psychological damage to your children by blowing up their favorite toys, I think something along the lines of a pumpkin or watermelon substitute would get the point across just as well.
I carry a sidearm with me pretty much everywhere I go (as allowed by state law, anyway). I reside in Georgia, and I have in fact carried my sidearm in plain view on MARTA and in the public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson.
I've never had to use it, never even had to draw it, and $DEITY willing, I never will.
It's presence on my hip has acted as a deterrent to what would have very likely resulted in at least a 911 call, if not a trip to the emergency room or the morgue on two occasions. Downtown Atlanta is not a friendly place at 3am.
A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested. Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up. Most of us take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously, and we do so because we understand that the world at large is not a friendly place. I am an honest and true believer that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
You've got it right in one. The biggest issue is one of trust. I don't trust the gun to not screw up when I need it the most.
I don't trust the technology to work when the gun needs to be rekeyed to a new owner upon resale (assuming that's even possible. Wouldn't surprise me if the intial models are imprint once and that's it). Or when I want to rent a gun and test fire it before I purchase.
I don't trust the technology to not have some kind of back door making the firearm able to be disabled, even when I'm the keyed owner and I pull the trigger.
As for safety... give me a break. My first firearms instructor put it best 'Your finger is the safety'. If I put my finger on the trigger, it means the discharge of my weapon is imminent unless circumstances change *really* quick.
About the only way this will work is for manufacturers to offer it as a cheaper alternative (aka, the Android business model) in order to spur adoption, and then increase cost as it became more mainstream.
The vast majority of firearms deaths are caused by people pulling the trigger on purpose, and a smart gun does nothing to prevent that decision.
I think you have to look at the typical mindset of a typical dev. A dev, essentially, expresses themselves, or imposes their will by writing code. When you bloat code with a bunch of unnecessary crap, it tends to be ridiculed. A good dev is focused on getting their desired result as efficiently and effectively as possible. It's not surprising that would bleed over to other areas of their life.
Political correctness and 'professionalism' in the corporate sense is not efficient, rarely is it effective, and it's certainly a bloat on the brain procs. It's not terribly surprising that a good number of devs eschew it, or practice the bare minimum possible (or that they can tolerate, anyway).
That's the way the community is, and if you're not capable of functioning like that and can't adapt, then you shouldn't be joining the community. You should go off and do your own thing, with other like minded people if desired. That is, after all, what Linus did.
While the Linux kernel has cetainly taken on something of a life of it's own, it hasn't quite reached the level of a corporate environment where the head of the table can be ousted by the latercomers. Linus runs his house like Linus wants to run his house, and I think it's in bad taste to criticize him for it.
Most of the Castle Doctrine laws across the nation don't require imminent death as a requirement. Grave bodily harm to yourself or another is enough. Fear for your life is also enough.
If you've got a guy who's a couple of inches taller than you straddling your chest and smashing your head against the ground, I'd say that qualifies as fear of death or grave bodily harm. You have no idea when the dude is going to stop, if at all, nor what kind of injury you might suffer in the process. Head injuries aren't exactly trivial. I'd have pulled the trigger in the same instance, no question. The rights of the guy who's beating the shit out of me don't trump my right to defend myself, nor am I required to wait until it progresses to the point where it's potentially lethal.
Indeed. At the risk of going all conspiracy theorist, I have to wonder if the debacle with the Bolivian presidents plane was the US (because really, does anyone believe that the long arm of Uncle Sam isn't ultimately behind it?) firing a shot across the bow, using Morales as an example, or is someone fucking with the CIA to see if they'd flinch. If the former, then as an American, I am absolutely disgusted with what would be an act of international thuggery. If the latter, then it belies President Obama's shrugging off of the entire Snowden thing and shows that we *really* want him back.
And that, of course, leads to the question of what he knows, and what they're afraid he'll let out.
Honestly, I'm a little suspicious that this is a ploy. Announce a major change, cause an outrage, then back up and say 'ok, ok, we've listened to the customers, we're not going to kill TechNet, but we are going to have to make some changes....'
It's not necessarily about what he would prefer to use, but what his clients want to use. If the client wants Microsoft solutions, you can try and educate them about open source, but if they decide they still want Microsoft, are you going to tell them to find someone else because it conflicts with your personal preferences? Unless you're already financially independent, then no, you're going to give the client what they ask for (and figure you can make some 'i told you so' cash when they get what they asked for, but not what they wanted).
In order to do that, you need to be able to actually deploy Microsoft solutions. TechNet is a huge help to the independent contractor or freelance consultant when it comes to keeping your skills sharp.
For starters, there was no real point to contradict, just an assumption on your part without any substantiating evidence.
I did address your assertion. It's bad logic to assume that just because you implement a solution that's inline with your customers budget and requirements, that you're 'selling' that product. Unless he either admits or you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's getting a commission out of Atlassian for implementing their products, you're pulling assumptions out of your ass.
But you go right on ahead being angry on the internet. Rawr.
There's not a single major piece of software that hasn't had security flaws at one point or another. Remember when OpenBSD's web page bragged about no remote security holes in the default install? Even they've had two, and those boys are the epitome of paranoid security freaks.
So I can forgive Atlassian to a degree, as long as they fix the damn thing, and fix it in a hurry. If your standard of 'good' software is no security holes at all, then I'm afraid you're going to have to log off and go back to playing with Lego's.
Some of Atlassian's software is easy to use, and some of it can overwhelm a user. I've ran into a few coworkers who hated Confluence, and it was because they couldn't figure out how to do what they wanted. After I showed them, the gripes mysteriously disappeared. Confluence and JIRA are good pieces of software. Not perfect, but they serve their purpose.
Yeah, I'm a tad annoyed at some of the changes in Confluence 5.
As far as tuning goes, that I cannot offer any advice on. In the enterprise, we run Confluence virtualized, and our VMWare admins and server admins were the ones who beat their heads against it. My personal install is also virtualized on VMWare, and I just tossed 4 gigs of memory and 2 vCPU's at it, and it works fine. However, it only supports like 4 users, so it's not exactly the greatest stress test in the world.
Confluence works fine, but you have to be willing to throw the right hardware at it, or be willing to tune it. Something like Doku or Mediawiki is alot less resource intensive, but Confluence is, in a nutshell, a java app, and you need to treat it accordingly. Once tuned and scaled properly, it works just as well as any other wiki, and I personally find formatting for it to be alot easier, as well as the actual management of it.
Ah, right. You sell Atlassian software. Can you say "conflict of interest"?
You're being a dick. It's fairly obviously he does consulting work for clients, and as such, provides them with solutions to meet their requirements and improve their work flow. That's like saying that, just because I'm a network engineer whose decides to implement a Cisco solution for a customer, that I'm selling Cisco hardware.
If you're virtualizing Atlassian apps, it does take a bit of work and optimization to make them play nice, which is how every install (including my own personal ones) I've ever worked on has been installed. Once they're tuned, they hold up and scale pretty well though.
All of the individual apps can be tied to AD (or another directory) directly. Crowd is pretty much what you use when you want single sign-on/centralized auth, but you don't want to deploy AD or go through the pain in the ass of setting up and maintaining your own LDAP server.
I've also seen it used in large enterprises which have multiple authentication sources, the kind where systems just kind of creep, but no one wants to take the time (or risk the downtime) for consolidation. In that scenario, it's alot easier to tie the apps to Crowd for authentication, and then you just need to manage authentication sources in Crowd, instead of individually on the apps.
Atlassian actually makes some pretty good software, and their prices are reasonable for their starter kits to get used to it. My only gripe is that it's all pretty much Tomcat based
The irony is that back when cloud storage started to become a big buzzword, folks were worried about things like their data coming to rest in China.
Honestly, the NSA scandal just provides me with some vindication when I argue for encrypting all data, no matter how inconvenient it may be, and to avoid the cloud unless it's a cloud you built and control yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I reside in Georgia, and I have in fact carried my sidearm in plain view on MARTA and in the public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson.
I'm somewhat dubious that you carried openly in an airport unless you were wearing a uniform at the time or this was a LONG time ago. However even if you did I have to ask, WHY? Nobody is going to attack you in an airport that you are going to be able to defend against and it's about as secure a location as you are likely to be in. Your sidearm at best is NO help at all and at worst could cause a huge problem. I don't have any problem at all with people transporting their unloaded firearms though airports but if you brought a loaded firearm into an airport in the current security environment we should have heard your arrest report on the evening news. I say this even if what you did was perfectly legal. Actions like that are what gives thugs like the TSA the excuse they need to behave badly.
You can be as dubious as you want. Back in 2008, the Georgia legislature cleaned up our gun laws and brought us out of the Jim Crow era when it comes to firearms statutes.. Part of the bill that cleaned it up allowed legally licensed firearms holders to carry their weapons on public transportation and into the public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson. Initially, the Atlanta mayor, Shirley Franklin, opposed the law and vowed to jail anyone who brought a firearm into the airport. There was a federal lawsuit filed against the mayor and the airport manager to force them to follow the law. In 2010, Mayor Franklin's successor, Kasim Reed, decided he was going to go ahead and follow Georgia state law, though he was unhappy about it, and rescinded the ban on guns at the airport.
My carrying in the airport was not a statement of pro-gun activity, or doing it just because I could, it came about quite accidentally. I was in Chattanooga, and my car died. It was late enough that I couldn't get a rental, and I had to be back in Atlanta the following morning. I took a shuttle bus from Chattanooga to Hartsfield and rented a car at the airport. I'd had my firearm with me in Tennessee, as there are reciprocity agreements between TN and GA respecting each others firearms licenses. What was I going to do? Leave my firearm in my car unattended for several days? That is highly irresponsible.
Now please note, it's legal to carry at Hartsfield only in the *PUBLIC* areas of the terminal. I did not pass security, as that is still quite illegal. However, I was not stopped or hassled by any security at the airport (and honestly, I was expecting to be). I know this fucks with your perception of reality, but believe it or not, there are states and people out there who do not demonize those who would exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
Believe it or not, I wouldn't have a problem paying for that feature as a matter of principle.
What I will not do is pay a premium for it for the simple reason that I don't drink. That's just throwing money away. I'd be willing to pay for it if having the feature would lower my insurance premiums, thereby making it a wash in the capital cost (and even a gain, long term, if I keep the vehicle long enough). As of yet, I do not believe that's the case.
The other issue is that I would need to be absolutely certain that the vehicle was not storing any history and that the results of any individual start up would not be available to any entity, ever. I have enough shit spying on me already, don't need my car doing it as well.
The one thing folks can never be free of is human nature, whether their own or that of another.
Civility is only accomplished by the mutual agreement of all participants. Not everyone is willing to participate.
I agree with you in that it would be ideal to not have a need at all, but there hasn't been a society in the history of the world that has been free from a criminal or oppressive element.
However, I have to live in the real world where there are people who are more than willing to do me and mine harm if presented with the opportunity. I choose to eliminate the possibility of becoming a victim as much as I possibly can.
And on gun control in America...it's high time owners will have to pay for psychological evaluation, mandatory handling training and be limited to one firearm per person. A handgun should be the maximum any person should be able to buy.
Not sure how America is better with so many gun owners...I certainly think it needs less guns, less gun owners and less guns per owner. -I know call me a commie conspirator.
You do understand that the only people gun control has any effect on are the law abiding citizens and they're the least likely to commit gun crimes, yes? In order to get my permit, I had to give up my fingerprints. My local sheriff's department, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the federal NICS system all have my prints on file. If I screw up, they know who I am, whether it's gun related or not. That provides some massive incentive to not step out of line. It doesn't matter how restrictive you make the laws, a criminal is *not* going to give a shit, so the only thing you're doing is making it easier for armed criminals. Do you honestly believe Columbine, or Virgina Tech, or Sandy Hook would have been as nasty as they were if the law abiding folk had been able to defend themselves? You want to fix the problem of crazy people shooting up schools? Allow the teachers (and students, for colleges) to carry their legal firearms onto the premises.
Secondly - ask any law enforcement professional or military combatant how reliable having only one firearm is and whether they would ever consider sacrificing their backup. If you're willing to allow for firearms for personal protection, you should be willing to allow that we should be able to have at least as much protection.
Thirdly - (and to destroy any credibility I might have!) We may want to at one point or another have another Revolution. If we disarm ourselves due to blind stupidity and general fear, that will be rather difficult. (I wish I could say I was joking, but the way things have been going....)
The worst atrocities in history have been committed by people with weapons against people without. There's a reason that the adage about those who ignore history being doomed to repeat it is an *old* adage.
Why would you keep a locked up gun unloaded? If you're going to be storing it in a safe, it needs to be fully loaded and have one in the pipe.
The better alternative is to educate children on the fact that guns are dangerous.
One of my friends tells the story of how her dad educated her on the dangers of guns.
When she was a little girl, one day he came and got her and her favorite stuffed animal, a big floppy bear.
He nailed the bear to a tree.
And then he shot it at relatively close range with a 12 gauge on full choke. The bear pretty much exploded.
Cruel? Undeniably so (her dad is kind of an asshole). Effective? Damn straight.
While I certainly wouldn't advocate for doing possibly psychological damage to your children by blowing up their favorite toys, I think something along the lines of a pumpkin or watermelon substitute would get the point across just as well.
It depends.
I carry a sidearm with me pretty much everywhere I go (as allowed by state law, anyway). I reside in Georgia, and I have in fact carried my sidearm in plain view on MARTA and in the public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson.
I've never had to use it, never even had to draw it, and $DEITY willing, I never will.
It's presence on my hip has acted as a deterrent to what would have very likely resulted in at least a 911 call, if not a trip to the emergency room or the morgue on two occasions. Downtown Atlanta is not a friendly place at 3am.
A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested. Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up. Most of us take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously, and we do so because we understand that the world at large is not a friendly place. I am an honest and true believer that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
You've got it right in one. The biggest issue is one of trust. I don't trust the gun to not screw up when I need it the most.
I don't trust the technology to work when the gun needs to be rekeyed to a new owner upon resale (assuming that's even possible. Wouldn't surprise me if the intial models are imprint once and that's it). Or when I want to rent a gun and test fire it before I purchase.
I don't trust the technology to not have some kind of back door making the firearm able to be disabled, even when I'm the keyed owner and I pull the trigger.
As for safety... give me a break. My first firearms instructor put it best 'Your finger is the safety'. If I put my finger on the trigger, it means the discharge of my weapon is imminent unless circumstances change *really* quick.
About the only way this will work is for manufacturers to offer it as a cheaper alternative (aka, the Android business model) in order to spur adoption, and then increase cost as it became more mainstream.
The vast majority of firearms deaths are caused by people pulling the trigger on purpose, and a smart gun does nothing to prevent that decision.
Linus doesn't really meet my definition of 'a dick'.
He's a fuzzy little kitten compared to Theo de Raat.
I think you have to look at the typical mindset of a typical dev. A dev, essentially, expresses themselves, or imposes their will by writing code. When you bloat code with a bunch of unnecessary crap, it tends to be ridiculed. A good dev is focused on getting their desired result as efficiently and effectively as possible. It's not surprising that would bleed over to other areas of their life.
Political correctness and 'professionalism' in the corporate sense is not efficient, rarely is it effective, and it's certainly a bloat on the brain procs. It's not terribly surprising that a good number of devs eschew it, or practice the bare minimum possible (or that they can tolerate, anyway).
That's the way the community is, and if you're not capable of functioning like that and can't adapt, then you shouldn't be joining the community. You should go off and do your own thing, with other like minded people if desired. That is, after all, what Linus did.
While the Linux kernel has cetainly taken on something of a life of it's own, it hasn't quite reached the level of a corporate environment where the head of the table can be ousted by the latercomers. Linus runs his house like Linus wants to run his house, and I think it's in bad taste to criticize him for it.
Most of the Castle Doctrine laws across the nation don't require imminent death as a requirement. Grave bodily harm to yourself or another is enough. Fear for your life is also enough.
If you've got a guy who's a couple of inches taller than you straddling your chest and smashing your head against the ground, I'd say that qualifies as fear of death or grave bodily harm. You have no idea when the dude is going to stop, if at all, nor what kind of injury you might suffer in the process. Head injuries aren't exactly trivial. I'd have pulled the trigger in the same instance, no question. The rights of the guy who's beating the shit out of me don't trump my right to defend myself, nor am I required to wait until it progresses to the point where it's potentially lethal.
Indeed. At the risk of going all conspiracy theorist, I have to wonder if the debacle with the Bolivian presidents plane was the US (because really, does anyone believe that the long arm of Uncle Sam isn't ultimately behind it?) firing a shot across the bow, using Morales as an example, or is someone fucking with the CIA to see if they'd flinch. If the former, then as an American, I am absolutely disgusted with what would be an act of international thuggery. If the latter, then it belies President Obama's shrugging off of the entire Snowden thing and shows that we *really* want him back.
And that, of course, leads to the question of what he knows, and what they're afraid he'll let out.
I think you're getting privacy confused with anonymity.
Honestly, I'm a little suspicious that this is a ploy. Announce a major change, cause an outrage, then back up and say 'ok, ok, we've listened to the customers, we're not going to kill TechNet, but we are going to have to make some changes....'
Or you go find your eyepatch and go raiding with the merry pirate brigade!
It's not necessarily about what he would prefer to use, but what his clients want to use. If the client wants Microsoft solutions, you can try and educate them about open source, but if they decide they still want Microsoft, are you going to tell them to find someone else because it conflicts with your personal preferences? Unless you're already financially independent, then no, you're going to give the client what they ask for (and figure you can make some 'i told you so' cash when they get what they asked for, but not what they wanted).
In order to do that, you need to be able to actually deploy Microsoft solutions. TechNet is a huge help to the independent contractor or freelance consultant when it comes to keeping your skills sharp.
For starters, there was no real point to contradict, just an assumption on your part without any substantiating evidence.
I did address your assertion. It's bad logic to assume that just because you implement a solution that's inline with your customers budget and requirements, that you're 'selling' that product. Unless he either admits or you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's getting a commission out of Atlassian for implementing their products, you're pulling assumptions out of your ass.
But you go right on ahead being angry on the internet. Rawr.
There's not a single major piece of software that hasn't had security flaws at one point or another. Remember when OpenBSD's web page bragged about no remote security holes in the default install? Even they've had two, and those boys are the epitome of paranoid security freaks.
So I can forgive Atlassian to a degree, as long as they fix the damn thing, and fix it in a hurry. If your standard of 'good' software is no security holes at all, then I'm afraid you're going to have to log off and go back to playing with Lego's.
Some of Atlassian's software is easy to use, and some of it can overwhelm a user. I've ran into a few coworkers who hated Confluence, and it was because they couldn't figure out how to do what they wanted. After I showed them, the gripes mysteriously disappeared. Confluence and JIRA are good pieces of software. Not perfect, but they serve their purpose.
Yeah, I'm a tad annoyed at some of the changes in Confluence 5.
As far as tuning goes, that I cannot offer any advice on. In the enterprise, we run Confluence virtualized, and our VMWare admins and server admins were the ones who beat their heads against it. My personal install is also virtualized on VMWare, and I just tossed 4 gigs of memory and 2 vCPU's at it, and it works fine. However, it only supports like 4 users, so it's not exactly the greatest stress test in the world.
Confluence works fine, but you have to be willing to throw the right hardware at it, or be willing to tune it. Something like Doku or Mediawiki is alot less resource intensive, but Confluence is, in a nutshell, a java app, and you need to treat it accordingly. Once tuned and scaled properly, it works just as well as any other wiki, and I personally find formatting for it to be alot easier, as well as the actual management of it.
Ah, right. You sell Atlassian software. Can you say "conflict of interest"?
You're being a dick. It's fairly obviously he does consulting work for clients, and as such, provides them with solutions to meet their requirements and improve their work flow. That's like saying that, just because I'm a network engineer whose decides to implement a Cisco solution for a customer, that I'm selling Cisco hardware.
You're sounding like a bitter jerk.
If you're virtualizing Atlassian apps, it does take a bit of work and optimization to make them play nice, which is how every install (including my own personal ones) I've ever worked on has been installed. Once they're tuned, they hold up and scale pretty well though.
All of the individual apps can be tied to AD (or another directory) directly. Crowd is pretty much what you use when you want single sign-on/centralized auth, but you don't want to deploy AD or go through the pain in the ass of setting up and maintaining your own LDAP server.
I've also seen it used in large enterprises which have multiple authentication sources, the kind where systems just kind of creep, but no one wants to take the time (or risk the downtime) for consolidation. In that scenario, it's alot easier to tie the apps to Crowd for authentication, and then you just need to manage authentication sources in Crowd, instead of individually on the apps.
Atlassian actually makes some pretty good software, and their prices are reasonable for their starter kits to get used to it. My only gripe is that it's all pretty much Tomcat based
And then there are folks who are just natural sadists and need no incubation period to become BOFH.
I've known a few in my time. Been accused of it, as well.
The irony is that back when cloud storage started to become a big buzzword, folks were worried about things like their data coming to rest in China.
Honestly, the NSA scandal just provides me with some vindication when I argue for encrypting all data, no matter how inconvenient it may be, and to avoid the cloud unless it's a cloud you built and control yourself.