In that situation, as long as you're not running anything Windows only, you probably could save some money.
But again, running Windows is the minor issue compared to the fact that you have either faulty hardware or faulty admins. 2000 server, and 2003 even more so, is a very stable platform. Anything other than a once monthly 5 minute overnight reboot is a sign of either bad hardware or an admin that shouldn't be an admin.
In the five years I've been admin where I am, I've never had any unplanned downtime the system itself can be blamed for (i.e. not including power disturbances, new server, etc).
Well, I'm exclding one of the servers they had when I first got here that used to be the receptionist's PC, but with a cheap SCSI card shoved in there. That soon went.
Yourself, if you are competent enough. Failing that, your replacement. If you are in charge of a network and don't know the costs involved, your boss really needs to replace you with someone who can do so.
So why post your views on an article that specifically talks about Windows vs Linux?
Want to re-read that fubnny writing at the top of the page? It's not about 'Windows Vs Linux', it's about the TCO of running your network, of which Windows vs Linux plays an insignificant part unless you're running it correctly in the first place.
BTW, Linux isn't for dummies. If it were, it would be called Windows.
And thus proving yourself to be an ignorant troll. Or, as would that would be referred to here on/. - 'insightful'.
67% more mail, 250% higher cost! Well maybe not, but they're still only telling half of the important story.
Really though - is this really a useful metric - x million emails per day? Anyone needing this sort of mail throughput is going to be either a megacorp with a centralised mail server (do any actually do this?) or an ISP. If you're talking this level of mail you're already using some multi-box mail system. In that case individual box performance isn't so important, but rather costs.
In essence - for anyone needing this kind of system, "$x per email per day" has got to be a better metric than the useless "one single box, we won't tell you how much it costs, can do x million mails per day".
Huh? I was never arguing the relative merits of Windows vs Linux.
I was saying that if you won't even manage what you have at the moment properly, a half baked migration will just probably cause more problems & costs than expected, and it will end up being more expensive. Anyone so imcompetent as to not even have an idea of their system costs is also probably the kind of person to hand their existing admins a "Linux for dummies" book between them instead of properly cross training.
Stop assuming that every post not saying "moving to Linux ALWAYS saves you gazillions of dollars, omg Linux is teh bestest!" is a Bill Gates loving troll. You might find life better that way.
Seriously, anyone who doesn't even have a clue how much their systems are costing them are only ever going to make it worse - and more expensive - by randomly moving to another platform because someone's friend told them it was free. Anyone making such kneejerk reactions without the figures also has a high probability of being a moron that makes anything they touch turn to sh*t anyway, making it doubly worse.
In essence - if you don't even know what you're doing with what you have, don't make it worse by changing it to something else that's so different.
I don't know if MS should be pointing this out in their marketing though - one one hand it's inherently true and a great way for them to fight the leaks to OSS - but it's also pointing out to the majority of customers that they're stupid.
Won't work. As soon as there's any relatively common blocking of.xxx domains, those that moved will just move back.
Also - "...forcing the sites to use.xxx domain if they contain pornography..." LOL. Who would enforce this? There's no international group with such powers.
Now I'm no Firefox fanboi (I use it but don't evangelise it, and also still use IE), but didn't they consider the possibility that the change is instead in the readership of their monitored websites? Of course, that would bring doubt into their business model so of course not - "the figures show it so it MUST be true."
Anyway, I think it's more than Firefox users have a better memory - so have less reason to revisit pages.:-D
Well you may have a valid point about your ability to turn the XBox into a better media player, but your describing this this as "hacking out of necessity" is completely laughable. You need a media modded XBox to live or something?
The sad thing is that I genuinely believe that a headline of "Pedohphiles use phones. We need to tap your phone to stop pedophiles." Would easily get 20% of people agreeing.
I guess that the general population just get what they deserve, and the rest of us have to suffer along with them.
I mean, they'll never find a way around this, right?
All I can say is thank god that the technology doesn't exist to communicate over voice outside of the phone and VoIP channels.
You know, if anyone ever figures out how to do direct PC-to-PC voice service, or if an IM service such as Yahoo ever include voice in their client, we'll all be doomed!
Wait a minute... they could be emailing each other right now! They could be talking to each other on IRC right now, or in a chat room, or through Yahoo messenger, or through MSN messenger, or through....
Yikes. I never realised how much danger we are all in. SOMEONE BLOW UP THE INTERNET NOW!!!!!!1!!!1oneone
The police's job should NOT be to protect lives. People dying of their own accord is their own problem. The police should do one thing and one thing only - enfore the law of the land.
Obviously they can't do everything all of the time, but the top priority should always be to protect the innocent (the family who's house is currently under attack) before protecting the guilty (the f**kwit driving too fast risking his own life). Likewise the clear immediate danger is to the family with the dumb driver only being a theoretical danger.
But which do they place priortity on? OOooooh yeah, the driver.
No, I'm not. Firstly I never said that driving significantly over the speed limit is a godo thing. It's still a crime. You think the posted limit is unreasonable in that area? Petition for a review of the limit there.
So I guess the solution is to ensure that everyone shoots, stabs, or otherwise mortally injures people commiting crimes against them. That would help even up the balance more I guess.
Personally, as others have said, I find that threatening violence against the criminals is honestly ten times more likely to get a police response than having a criminal threaten violence against you.
WARNING! Police in Washington enforce laws... that generate a revenue stream!
Personally I have no problem with Police enforcing laws, it's just when they go for the easy, (relatively) harmless, money-grabbing ones to the detriment of rapes, murders, assault, criminal damage, etc. that I have a problem.
Yeah, the problem is pretty bad where I live, too. Cops whoring themselves out for speeding fines when more serious crimes go reported and with no police response for hours or days.
People DON'T want: - Stupid DRM schemes - To not be able to resell after reading - To be tied to one reader/platform - Paying only fractionally less (or even more!) for an eBook that has essentailly zero per-unit costs. - Restrictions on what they can read and when - Cheap mobile eBook readers - Pocket computing devices (mainly phones) are only just becoming useful for this in the mainstream area. - Shitty availabilty. - Again - f***ed up pricing schemes.
Newer mode = smaller number! I can't remember the last product I saw that on.
Still, silent computers really are the way forward. Who wants fans buzzing at you non-stop? The noisiest components in a PC should be the HD and the optical drive.
No... I don't mean use an IBM Deathstar and wait for the click of doom, either.
>So, you think we have the technology to lift millions of people into space
A colony doesn't need millions of people. A few thousand should more than suffice. Besides, people are biological people factories. We only need get enough up there to have enough biodiversity and get em going at it like rabbits. If weight is really an issue, start sending up kids (obviously with sufficient supervisory adults) and let time take it's own path.
>together with all the building materials
Well I doubt this colony will just be sitting in empty space. Wherever we end up - moon, mars, elsewhere - we can make use of resources at that point.
> factories
Nanotech and self-assembling/reproducing machinery would be an excellent boon here. As long as we have the required resources where we go to, and a way to make it, it can happen.
> and other stuff necessary to grow food and produce replacement parts?
Give it an atmosphere, and the basic buildin blocks of life in a handy greenhouse, and we can do the whole food thing. For replacement parts - see factories.
Yes we probably need a few more advancements than we currently have, but not much. The rest is all down to determination and a desire to see it actually happen. Currently that doesn't exist.
Just like daytrips to the moon. We could have them right now - after all, the technology to get there and back was sufficiently advanced in the 60s to do it. There's just not the investment there any more.
Slashdot Mirror
In that situation, as long as you're not running anything Windows only, you probably could save some money.
But again, running Windows is the minor issue compared to the fact that you have either faulty hardware or faulty admins. 2000 server, and 2003 even more so, is a very stable platform. Anything other than a once monthly 5 minute overnight reboot is a sign of either bad hardware or an admin that shouldn't be an admin.
In the five years I've been admin where I am, I've never had any unplanned downtime the system itself can be blamed for (i.e. not including power disturbances, new server, etc).
Well, I'm exclding one of the servers they had when I first got here that used to be the receptionist's PC, but with a cheap SCSI card shoved in there. That soon went.
Yourself, if you are competent enough. Failing that, your replacement. If you are in charge of a network and don't know the costs involved, your boss really needs to replace you with someone who can do so.
So why post your views on an article that specifically talks about Windows vs Linux?
/. - 'insightful'.
Want to re-read that fubnny writing at the top of the page? It's not about 'Windows Vs Linux', it's about the TCO of running your network, of which Windows vs Linux plays an insignificant part unless you're running it correctly in the first place.
BTW, Linux isn't for dummies. If it were, it would be called Windows.
And thus proving yourself to be an ignorant troll. Or, as would that would be referred to here on
67% more mail, 250% higher cost! Well maybe not, but they're still only telling half of the important story.
Really though - is this really a useful metric - x million emails per day? Anyone needing this sort of mail throughput is going to be either a megacorp with a centralised mail server (do any actually do this?) or an ISP. If you're talking this level of mail you're already using some multi-box mail system. In that case individual box performance isn't so important, but rather costs.
In essence - for anyone needing this kind of system, "$x per email per day" has got to be a better metric than the useless "one single box, we won't tell you how much it costs, can do x million mails per day".
Huh? I was never arguing the relative merits of Windows vs Linux.
I was saying that if you won't even manage what you have at the moment properly, a half baked migration will just probably cause more problems & costs than expected, and it will end up being more expensive. Anyone so imcompetent as to not even have an idea of their system costs is also probably the kind of person to hand their existing admins a "Linux for dummies" book between them instead of properly cross training.
Stop assuming that every post not saying "moving to Linux ALWAYS saves you gazillions of dollars, omg Linux is teh bestest!" is a Bill Gates loving troll. You might find life better that way.
Seriously, anyone who doesn't even have a clue how much their systems are costing them are only ever going to make it worse - and more expensive - by randomly moving to another platform because someone's friend told them it was free. Anyone making such kneejerk reactions without the figures also has a high probability of being a moron that makes anything they touch turn to sh*t anyway, making it doubly worse.
In essence - if you don't even know what you're doing with what you have, don't make it worse by changing it to something else that's so different.
I don't know if MS should be pointing this out in their marketing though - one one hand it's inherently true and a great way for them to fight the leaks to OSS - but it's also pointing out to the majority of customers that they're stupid.
Won't work. As soon as there's any relatively common blocking of .xxx domains, those that moved will just move back.
.xxx domain if they contain pornography..." LOL. Who would enforce this? There's no international group with such powers.
Also - "...forcing the sites to use
I guess this is a beowolf cluster of pressure and temperature sensors.
Actually, this stuff looks pretty neat. It could easily be adapted for security uses too, I'm sure.
Now I'm no Firefox fanboi (I use it but don't evangelise it, and also still use IE), but didn't they consider the possibility that the change is instead in the readership of their monitored websites?
:-D
Of course, that would bring doubt into their business model so of course not - "the figures show it so it MUST be true."
Anyway, I think it's more than Firefox users have a better memory - so have less reason to revisit pages.
In particular, if a blind user comes to our website, they should see something...
What are you - Jesus or something?
Well of course it was.
We even read about God and Moses putting out a beta version using stone. In Beta 2 it was changed to paper, and hence the dead sea scrolls.
That religion stuff is just padding.
Well you may have a valid point about your ability to turn the XBox into a better media player, but your describing this this as "hacking out of necessity" is completely laughable. You need a media modded XBox to live or something?
I have no idea what Honeymonkey is, what Windows is, or even who Microsoft are.
BUT....Damn "Honeymonkey" is such a cool codename. I'm going to name my firstborn after it!
The sad thing is that I genuinely believe that a headline of "Pedohphiles use phones. We need to tap your phone to stop pedophiles." Would easily get 20% of people agreeing.
I guess that the general population just get what they deserve, and the rest of us have to suffer along with them.
If anyone is wondering, 500 megawatts can power about 500,000 homes.
Or half a dozen Pentium 4s. Go Intel.
I mean, they'll never find a way around this, right?
All I can say is thank god that the technology doesn't exist to communicate over voice outside of the phone and VoIP channels.
You know, if anyone ever figures out how to do direct PC-to-PC voice service, or if an IM service such as Yahoo ever include voice in their client, we'll all be doomed!
Wait a minute... they could be emailing each other right now! They could be talking to each other on IRC right now, or in a chat room, or through Yahoo messenger, or through MSN messenger, or through....
Yikes. I never realised how much danger we are all in. SOMEONE BLOW UP THE INTERNET NOW!!!!!!1!!!1oneone
Nor am I American.
The police's job should NOT be to protect lives. People dying of their own accord is their own problem. The police should do one thing and one thing only - enfore the law of the land.
Obviously they can't do everything all of the time, but the top priority should always be to protect the innocent (the family who's house is currently under attack) before protecting the guilty (the f**kwit driving too fast risking his own life). Likewise the clear immediate danger is to the family with the dumb driver only being a theoretical danger.
But which do they place priortity on? OOooooh yeah, the driver.
No, I'm not.
Firstly I never said that driving significantly over the speed limit is a godo thing. It's still a crime. You think the posted limit is unreasonable in that area? Petition for a review of the limit there.
Secondly, I've never ever been stopped anyway.
Thirdly, I don't drive.
So I guess the solution is to ensure that everyone shoots, stabs, or otherwise mortally injures people commiting crimes against them. That would help even up the balance more I guess.
Personally, as others have said, I find that threatening violence against the criminals is honestly ten times more likely to get a police response than having a criminal threaten violence against you.
Fucked up world, isn't it?
Is that 100Mb shared among everyone? In that case it will suck.
If the 100Mb is for each person, what's the limit to the number of people that can use it?
TFA is short on actual details.
WARNING! Police in Washington enforce laws... that generate a revenue stream!
Personally I have no problem with Police enforcing laws, it's just when they go for the easy, (relatively) harmless, money-grabbing ones to the detriment of rapes, murders, assault, criminal damage, etc. that I have a problem.
Yeah, the problem is pretty bad where I live, too. Cops whoring themselves out for speeding fines when more serious crimes go reported and with no police response for hours or days.
F*** them.
People DO want eBooks
People DON'T want:
- Stupid DRM schemes
- To not be able to resell after reading
- To be tied to one reader/platform
- Paying only fractionally less (or even more!) for an eBook that has essentailly zero per-unit costs.
- Restrictions on what they can read and when
- Cheap mobile eBook readers - Pocket computing devices (mainly phones) are only just becoming useful for this in the mainstream area.
- Shitty availabilty.
- Again - f***ed up pricing schemes.
Newer mode = smaller number! I can't remember the last product I saw that on.
Still, silent computers really are the way forward. Who wants fans buzzing at you non-stop? The noisiest components in a PC should be the HD and the optical drive.
No... I don't mean use an IBM Deathstar and wait for the click of doom, either.
1) Make them big
2) One of these on Earth
3) One of these on the Moon
4) Make big ball-shaped transport vessels.
5) SPACE PROFIT!
Certainly a lot better than crappy shuttles that are critically damaged by bloody foam insulation.
>So, you think we have the technology to lift millions of people into space
A colony doesn't need millions of people. A few thousand should more than suffice. Besides, people are biological people factories. We only need get enough up there to have enough biodiversity and get em going at it like rabbits. If weight is really an issue, start sending up kids (obviously with sufficient supervisory adults) and let time take it's own path.
>together with all the building materials
Well I doubt this colony will just be sitting in empty space. Wherever we end up - moon, mars, elsewhere - we can make use of resources at that point.
> factories
Nanotech and self-assembling/reproducing machinery would be an excellent boon here. As long as we have the required resources where we go to, and a way to make it, it can happen.
> and other stuff necessary to grow food and produce replacement parts?
Give it an atmosphere, and the basic buildin blocks of life in a handy greenhouse, and we can do the whole food thing. For replacement parts - see factories.
Yes we probably need a few more advancements than we currently have, but not much. The rest is all down to determination and a desire to see it actually happen. Currently that doesn't exist.
Just like daytrips to the moon. We could have them right now - after all, the technology to get there and back was sufficiently advanced in the 60s to do it. There's just not the investment there any more.