"Here's something to think about, a post can't be OVERrated if it has not been RATED at all yet."
Okay, let's think about it then.
Hmmm... Done!
Look: Do you see that "(Score 0)" there, right after the subject? What do you think "Score 0" means? Well, it tells how your message is rated. Yes, it is automated; yes, it is not modded by a human but still, "0" is how your message is rated.
And if someone thinks your messege doesn't deserve even a "0" rating then the proper moderation is certainly, well, "-1 Overrated".
"The only issue is that if the author wrote the code at work, it's not his to give away."
Check your facts.
The only issue is that if the author didn't stamp a license into his code, then legal "defaults" apply. And regarding software there's no country on the first world I know of that "default" is other than "you can't touch this, not even with the end of a ten foot pole".
"If the author of the code posted it in a forum, I would personally call that implicit permission to use the code.Otherwise, why even post it? "
If the author of the song threw it in *a lot* of public mass media, I would personally call that implicit permission to use the song. Otherwise, why make it so public?
"As to the legality of downloading it, if it is showing in your browser window, you have already downloaded it."
As to the legality of downloading it, if it going out your speakers, you have already downloaded it.
"I can see portable data centres being justified in Military war scenarios, or Crisis scenarios such as Katrina... but for everyday operations, the costs & logistics of such operations would be absurd to most Enterprises."
As others have already said, don't think about them like "Mobile" but "Modular". Now think that instead of a very engineered data center you just build a big hangar already fiber and electrically connected. Now you just start adding containers as need grows. Surely your structure it's not easily mobile, but it's still *easierly* mobile than a standard datacenter, easier to deploy and if big enough probably cheaper too.
Now: 1) Where is the portable fiber to go with the portable data centre? True; fixed cost... but not bigger than in a standard datacenter. 2) The same could be said for power & cooling. Not exactly. It won't be more expensive than standard datacenter but it can be easily cheaper: proper cooling is design *within* each unit container; you can even easily design water cooling for them; think Niagara falls: cheap electricity and cooling; all it takes is your datapath. 3) What about risk of damage? What about it? You don't have a container in the mid of Bronx; you have fifty of them within a (comparatively) cheap hangar. 4) Transportation of a Data Center = Low up time & bad ROI. Only *if* you transport it. After all on a standard datacenter you transported all raw material and electronics at least once, didn't you? But on an standard datacenter you needed to pay for packaging for transportation; packaging into the trailers, moving to your premises and then unpackaging and deploy it into your datacenter; now the trailer becoms itself your datacenter as it arrives. And still you *can* retransport it for a short fraction of the cost if/when need arises. 5) Each time a DC in a box is ported around, that's time the DC can not be considered to be in an "UP" and running state. This not only breaks the "must be up 99.9% of the time" (or whatever percentage), but also an expensive capital cost such as a data centre that can not be used part of the time, will have a low efficiency in terms of ROI.
Of course you don't move then out of fun but only when it does makes sense. On a big scale you won't have one "transportable unit" (depending on your size the "transportable unit" will be one container or it will be a whole hangar full of them), so moving one of them won't mean downtime. But *when* need arises, try to retransport your traditional datacenter without downtime and see costs skyrocket vs. moving it a container at a time. And even then, you migth be lucky and have even a single unit connected by means of microwaves (cheap; the fabric or at least the pre-fabric is already there, without cost) while transporting. The key is that *when* you need to move it what would you prefer to move?
"I can see portable data centres being justified in Military war scenarios, or Crisis scenarios such as Katrina..."
That's an uberobvious situation, yes.
"but for everyday operations, the costs & logistics of such operations would be absurd to most Enterprises."
It might not be the answer for an already deployed traditional datacenter for an stablished ISP; it might not be the answer for a shorter contender needing a 100 square meter data center or less (unless it rents space from a bigger one or on a crisis scenario like you already stated and I agreed with) but it probably *is* the answer for companies that need or want one or two 2500 square meter datacenters or more (and there're lots of them)... or it will be as soon as bigger contenders (Google or Akamai being prime examples) make enough use of them to make the price per unit a bit more affordable.
You maybe have three Linux boxen but by the very use of the word "boxen" you already showed you own no common sense so your opinion is moot and ignored.
"It's silly that they do that. We call our Sun, the Sun, and our moon, the Moon"
I'd say that's not the case. We call other planetary systems' main stars "suns" because of the Sun and we call other planets' satellites "moons" because of the Moon, not the other way around.
Maybe you shouldn't. The previous poster just argumented that costs for the migration might be less than others would want you to believe. After all, he showed an scenario where there was the chance of migrating from XP to Vista *or* Ubuntu; from Office whatever to last version *or* Open Office. But, then, "why should you" migrate to Vista or Office last version to begin with? Now, if you state your reasons clear you might find that there're better migration targets than Vista or Office.
"In my department we use Windows and we have no need to replace it"
And that's part of the point. Your deparment surely doesn't use "Windows". You may use "Windows XP" or "Windows 2003" but certainly not "just Windows". Of course Microsoft marketing mill with be delighted at the idea of you really thinking that you use "Windows" because then, on your mind, there can't be migration costs or problems going from "XP" to "Vista" since there's no real migration at all. But once you realize you are not using Windows but "Windows XP" there's the chance you see going from "Windows XP" to "Windows Vista" as a real migration path and, as such, opened to be discarded in favour of a (mightbe) more positive migration path like, may be, from "Windows XP" to "Ubuntu Linux" (or any other else).
"if you have a good It team who secures the OS, there should be minimal risks"
No doubt. But I think that, as news reveals, not everybody seems to have "good It teams" and even then, maybe TCO for Microsoft-based environments *might* be higher than alternatives. Of course you won't see that unless you take the time and effort to study your facts.
"A well configured XP or 2003 can be as secure as any other OS."
Maybe. But this is only part of the equation. Is it as secure as any other OS? And as cheaper? And as flexible? And as reliable? Maybe *your* local answer is "yes", maybe is "no", maybe "yes for some subsystems but not for others".
"So why just begin from the beginning with a new OS, new applications, emulatiosn, etc if the well configured real thing does the job?"
Just remember your own words next time you are about to move from NT to 2xxx to Vista to whatever.
"but other than using a bad, insecure database server in the first place, there is no reason that it should be a particular security problem."
Except, of course, that there's no good secure database server in first place. This is no news since there's no good secure "real big bunch of code lines for complex processes" either RBDM or anything else, to start with.
"Do you want your coolant open to the atmosphere somewhere?"
Not necesarily. But you certainly will have an expansion chamber somewhere that will take out (minor) air "leakeages" as well as any other volume variations. Pression excess will go out through a one-way valve on top of the expansion chamber as needed.
"you'd still end up with air in your circuit"
That's another reason for an expansion chamber (as well as purge valves through the route). Once the air in the expansion chamber it will simply "bluff" away.
"The best way to deal with leaks is not to have them"
The best way to deal with leaks is to know you *will* have them no matter what, avoid the obvious (and not so obvious as possible) and plan for the worst.
"We've solved this problem over a century ago."
Still I don't know of any circuit no matter how "closed" it's designed that it doesn't take into account leakeages, purging and volume variations.
"i have been using it with a database of gazillion users for many a year now"
Thus, you haven't used Qmail, but Qmail *plus* patches. Now, have been you so lucky to have to apply any two sets of patches? Chances are they won't cleanly apply or even if they apply cleanly, then you won't have the ubersecure inception from EJB's brilliant mind.
Not to diminish EJB merit (not that his ego were going to suffer, anyway), but I can say I build perfectly secure computers: I provided an iron mass, then you apply third party patches as needed.
"Unless there are system administrators who would defend state that they would prefer CentOS over RHEL"
On one hand there *are* system administrators that would defend CentOS over RHEL because there is more software directly avaliable and they can deploy it without filling a ton of interal paperwork for approval. On the other hand and in more general terms it is not a sysadmin the one that would risk the "Red Hat grasp" within the company but beancounters if they ever discover all their technical people would tell is "Red Hat and CentOS are absolutly identical -byte by byte; it's only CentOS is cheaper".
It's funny they "explained" it to you the same way almost "word by word" as it is "explained" on their support EULA text. I had once a teacher like this: his concept of "explaining" was just reading the text book word by word.
"What I believe _is_ hurting redhat is how their sales department insists that making copies of Redhat is illegal"
Well, they are marketroids, not legal drones, so while not too precise, they are right... to a point.
"We have been told time and time again that it is illegal for us to run copies of Redhat that are not paid for within our support contract. The truth is- as long as you aren't expecting support for the unpaid for copies and you are not selling them to other companies (alone or as part of your product, because of redhat trademarks) it is fine to use as many inhouse copies as you want."
Probably you are not a legal drone either. Why don't you please have a look at Red Hat support license *first*? This way it's much easier to make informed opinions. Of course you can make copies of Red Hat... as long as you aren't expecting support for *NEITHER* your paid nor your unpaid copies, and you are ready for Red Hat to ask you for an audit and you are ready to pay for any other copies of Red Hat running on your premises found by such an audit. It's just a matter of reading all that funny text *before* you press the "I accept" button.
"A well known company in my area has converted all Red Hat systems to CentOS systems, except where 3rd party vendor support contracts specify RHEL. They rarely used Red Hat support. From Red Hat's perspective this means a loss of $1.5 to 2 million per year that required virtually no effort on their part. Anecdotes aren't statistics, but surely this cannot be an isolated case, and it cannot be seen as a "positive" for Red Hat."
I think you yourself should re-read your own text. They moved from Red Hat to CentOS because Red Hat made no bussiness case for them. Why they didn't move from Red Hat to i.e. Debian? On your own account those 1.5;US$ were *already* lost: Red Hat added nothing and their client just moved away. *But* thanks to CentOS they didn't moved too far away: they still retain Red Hat for their certified platforms instead of going i.e. with Debian/Ubuntu. They are still focusing their technical abilities on Red Hat so you can bet next time they need a certified platform for a third party hardware/software avaliable for SUSE, Ubuntu and Red Hat they will go with Red Hat.
CentOS allowed Red Hat to minimize their looses, quite a good thing for them on my account.
"That said, I love CentOS. I'd never be able to justify a RHEL license for my home servers, so CentOS lets me use the same OS at home and at work."
Once more, due to CentOS what platform are you proficient with? What do you think would happen to Red Hat bussiness if you and all your likes were using Ubuntu at home instead of CentOS?
Yes, I buy servers with OS preinstalled only to test everything works OK before wipe it with our current standards.
It would be very nice if hardware vendors wouldn't be so inclined to the "certified for [whatever os]" and they'd go more for "this and this are the exact hardware specs" and "here comes the standard live-CD we'll ask you for when diagnosing hardware problems".
"I'm not getting how making things better is a failure"
That's because *making* things better is not a failure; it's *trying* to make things better which is the failure, because those environments aren't up for trying *and* making it happen (that's why they feel they need to change their processes in first place).
"If you're crap at it, and in fact make things worse it might be. Luckily, some of us aren't so crap."
Slashdot Mirror
"Before all this junk, wasn't there was a top level domain called .ARPA?"
.arpa TLD still today. I don't know if it currently holds anything but in-addr.arpa, but it surely exists.
There *is* an
"Here's something to think about, a post can't be OVERrated if it has not been RATED at all yet."
Okay, let's think about it then.
Hmmm...
Done!
Look: Do you see that "(Score 0)" there, right after the subject? What do you think "Score 0" means? Well, it tells how your message is rated. Yes, it is automated; yes, it is not modded by a human but still, "0" is how your message is rated.
And if someone thinks your messege doesn't deserve even a "0" rating then the proper moderation is certainly, well, "-1 Overrated".
"Therefore I conclude the units LoC and KLOC are the same."
Unless, of course, one KLOC means 1024 LOC.
"The only issue is that if the author wrote the code at work, it's not his to give away."
Check your facts.
The only issue is that if the author didn't stamp a license into his code, then legal "defaults" apply. And regarding software there's no country on the first world I know of that "default" is other than "you can't touch this, not even with the end of a ten foot pole".
"If the author of the code posted it in a forum, I would personally call that implicit permission to use the code.Otherwise, why even post it? "
If the author of the song threw it in *a lot* of public mass media, I would personally call that implicit permission to use the song. Otherwise, why make it so public?
"As to the legality of downloading it, if it is showing in your browser window, you have already downloaded it."
As to the legality of downloading it, if it going out your speakers, you have already downloaded it.
"I can see portable data centres being justified in Military war scenarios, or Crisis scenarios such as Katrina... but for everyday operations, the costs & logistics of such operations would be absurd to most Enterprises."
As others have already said, don't think about them like "Mobile" but "Modular". Now think that instead of a very engineered data center you just build a big hangar already fiber and electrically connected. Now you just start adding containers as need grows. Surely your structure it's not easily mobile, but it's still *easierly* mobile than a standard datacenter, easier to deploy and if big enough probably cheaper too.
Now:
1) Where is the portable fiber to go with the portable data centre? True; fixed cost... but not bigger than in a standard datacenter.
2) The same could be said for power & cooling. Not exactly. It won't be more expensive than standard datacenter but it can be easily cheaper: proper cooling is design *within* each unit container; you can even easily design water cooling for them; think Niagara falls: cheap electricity and cooling; all it takes is your datapath.
3) What about risk of damage? What about it? You don't have a container in the mid of Bronx; you have fifty of them within a (comparatively) cheap hangar.
4) Transportation of a Data Center = Low up time & bad ROI. Only *if* you transport it. After all on a standard datacenter you transported all raw material and electronics at least once, didn't you? But on an standard datacenter you needed to pay for packaging for transportation; packaging into the trailers, moving to your premises and then unpackaging and deploy it into your datacenter; now the trailer becoms itself your datacenter as it arrives. And still you *can* retransport it for a short fraction of the cost if/when need arises.
5) Each time a DC in a box is ported around, that's time the DC can not be considered to be in an "UP" and running state. This not only breaks the "must be up 99.9% of the time" (or whatever percentage), but also an expensive capital cost such as a data centre that can not be used part of the time, will have a low efficiency in terms of ROI.
Of course you don't move then out of fun but only when it does makes sense. On a big scale you won't have one "transportable unit" (depending on your size the "transportable unit" will be one container or it will be a whole hangar full of them), so moving one of them won't mean downtime. But *when* need arises, try to retransport your traditional datacenter without downtime and see costs skyrocket vs. moving it a container at a time. And even then, you migth be lucky and have even a single unit connected by means of microwaves (cheap; the fabric or at least the pre-fabric is already there, without cost) while transporting. The key is that *when* you need to move it what would you prefer to move?
"I can see portable data centres being justified in Military war scenarios, or Crisis scenarios such as Katrina..."
That's an uberobvious situation, yes.
"but for everyday operations, the costs & logistics of such operations would be absurd to most Enterprises."
It might not be the answer for an already deployed traditional datacenter for an stablished ISP; it might not be the answer for a shorter contender needing a 100 square meter data center or less (unless it rents space from a bigger one or on a crisis scenario like you already stated and I agreed with) but it probably *is* the answer for companies that need or want one or two 2500 square meter datacenters or more (and there're lots of them)... or it will be as soon as bigger contenders (Google or Akamai being prime examples) make enough use of them to make the price per unit a bit more affordable.
" I have boxen that run all three."
You maybe have three Linux boxen but by the very use of the word "boxen" you already showed you own no common sense so your opinion is moot and ignored.
"but do any scientists actually use that designation?"
You can bet any Spanish scientist will call it that way, since the Sun name in Spanish is... "Sol" as well as Moon's translation is "Luna".
"It's silly that they do that. We call our Sun, the Sun, and our moon, the Moon"
I'd say that's not the case. We call other planetary systems' main stars "suns" because of the Sun and we call other planets' satellites "moons" because of the Moon, not the other way around.
"Latin names make everything sound cooler, anywho."
Quid quid latinum dictus sit, altur videtur
Hey! You're right!
"So if it's bigger that Sol, does it look as big as Luna from Terra?"
It's Tierra, you insensitive clod!
"Why should I?"
Maybe you shouldn't. The previous poster just argumented that costs for the migration might be less than others would want you to believe. After all, he showed an scenario where there was the chance of migrating from XP to Vista *or* Ubuntu; from Office whatever to last version *or* Open Office. But, then, "why should you" migrate to Vista or Office last version to begin with? Now, if you state your reasons clear you might find that there're better migration targets than Vista or Office.
"In my department we use Windows and we have no need to replace it"
And that's part of the point. Your deparment surely doesn't use "Windows". You may use "Windows XP" or "Windows 2003" but certainly not "just Windows". Of course Microsoft marketing mill with be delighted at the idea of you really thinking that you use "Windows" because then, on your mind, there can't be migration costs or problems going from "XP" to "Vista" since there's no real migration at all. But once you realize you are not using Windows but "Windows XP" there's the chance you see going from "Windows XP" to "Windows Vista" as a real migration path and, as such, opened to be discarded in favour of a (mightbe) more positive migration path like, may be, from "Windows XP" to "Ubuntu Linux" (or any other else).
"if you have a good It team who secures the OS, there should be minimal risks"
No doubt. But I think that, as news reveals, not everybody seems to have "good It teams" and even then, maybe TCO for Microsoft-based environments *might* be higher than alternatives. Of course you won't see that unless you take the time and effort to study your facts.
"A well configured XP or 2003 can be as secure as any other OS."
Maybe. But this is only part of the equation. Is it as secure as any other OS? And as cheaper? And as flexible? And as reliable? Maybe *your* local answer is "yes", maybe is "no", maybe "yes for some subsystems but not for others".
"So why just begin from the beginning with a new OS, new applications, emulatiosn, etc if the well configured real thing does the job?"
Just remember your own words next time you are about to move from NT to 2xxx to Vista to whatever.
"but other than using a bad, insecure database server in the first place, there is no reason that it should be a particular security problem."
Except, of course, that there's no good secure database server in first place. This is no news since there's no good secure "real big bunch of code lines for complex processes" either RBDM or anything else, to start with.
"from a security perspective what does it offer you"
Simplyness or the KISS principle. Number one security mandate, that is.
"Do you want your coolant open to the atmosphere somewhere?"
Not necesarily. But you certainly will have an expansion chamber somewhere that will take out (minor) air "leakeages" as well as any other volume variations. Pression excess will go out through a one-way valve on top of the expansion chamber as needed.
"you'd still end up with air in your circuit"
That's another reason for an expansion chamber (as well as purge valves through the route). Once the air in the expansion chamber it will simply "bluff" away.
"The best way to deal with leaks is not to have them"
The best way to deal with leaks is to know you *will* have them no matter what, avoid the obvious (and not so obvious as possible) and plan for the worst.
"We've solved this problem over a century ago."
Still I don't know of any circuit no matter how "closed" it's designed that it doesn't take into account leakeages, purging and volume variations.
"Why should we question new ideas?"
Because they are not old.
That neither Plato, nor Spinoza, nor Newton... thought about it makes them questionable.
What!!! Smart==Thinks like you; Stupid==doesn't think like you???
Nonononono. You got it totally wrong! I'll explain: Smart==Thinks like *me*; Stupid==doesn't think like *me*
Got it?
Now... who's on first?
"you obviously haven't used it much."
You haven't, either.
"i have been using it with a database of gazillion users for many a year now"
Thus, you haven't used Qmail, but Qmail *plus* patches. Now, have been you so lucky to have to apply any two sets of patches? Chances are they won't cleanly apply or even if they apply cleanly, then you won't have the ubersecure inception from EJB's brilliant mind.
Not to diminish EJB merit (not that his ego were going to suffer, anyway), but I can say I build perfectly secure computers: I provided an iron mass, then you apply third party patches as needed.
"Unless there are system administrators who would defend state that they would prefer CentOS over RHEL"
On one hand there *are* system administrators that would defend CentOS over RHEL because there is more software directly avaliable and they can deploy it without filling a ton of interal paperwork for approval. On the other hand and in more general terms it is not a sysadmin the one that would risk the "Red Hat grasp" within the company but beancounters if they ever discover all their technical people would tell is "Red Hat and CentOS are absolutly identical -byte by byte; it's only CentOS is cheaper".
"Redhat explained it me like this"
It's funny they "explained" it to you the same way almost "word by word" as it is "explained" on their support EULA text. I had once a teacher like this: his concept of "explaining" was just reading the text book word by word.
"What I believe _is_ hurting redhat is how their sales department insists that making copies of Redhat is illegal"
Well, they are marketroids, not legal drones, so while not too precise, they are right... to a point.
"We have been told time and time again that it is illegal for us to run copies of Redhat that are not paid for within our support contract. The truth is- as long as you aren't expecting support for the unpaid for copies and you are not selling them to other companies (alone or as part of your product, because of redhat trademarks) it is fine to use as many inhouse copies as you want."
Probably you are not a legal drone either. Why don't you please have a look at Red Hat support license *first*? This way it's much easier to make informed opinions. Of course you can make copies of Red Hat... as long as you aren't expecting support for *NEITHER* your paid nor your unpaid copies, and you are ready for Red Hat to ask you for an audit and you are ready to pay for any other copies of Red Hat running on your premises found by such an audit. It's just a matter of reading all that funny text *before* you press the "I accept" button.
"A well known company in my area has converted all Red Hat systems to CentOS systems, except where 3rd party vendor support contracts specify RHEL. They rarely used Red Hat support. From Red Hat's perspective this means a loss of $1.5 to 2 million per year that required virtually no effort on their part. Anecdotes aren't statistics, but surely this cannot be an isolated case, and it cannot be seen as a "positive" for Red Hat."
I think you yourself should re-read your own text. They moved from Red Hat to CentOS because Red Hat made no bussiness case for them. Why they didn't move from Red Hat to i.e. Debian? On your own account those 1.5;US$ were *already* lost: Red Hat added nothing and their client just moved away. *But* thanks to CentOS they didn't moved too far away: they still retain Red Hat for their certified platforms instead of going i.e. with Debian/Ubuntu. They are still focusing their technical abilities on Red Hat so you can bet next time they need a certified platform for a third party hardware/software avaliable for SUSE, Ubuntu and Red Hat they will go with Red Hat.
CentOS allowed Red Hat to minimize their looses, quite a good thing for them on my account.
"That said, I love CentOS. I'd never be able to justify a RHEL license for my home servers, so CentOS lets me use the same OS at home and at work."
Once more, due to CentOS what platform are you proficient with? What do you think would happen to Red Hat bussiness if you and all your likes were using Ubuntu at home instead of CentOS?
"Why is it that the smaller an animal is, the more acceptable it is to kill it in a gruesome fashion?"
You are just so right! That surely explains why no one would make steaks out of a calf while we have so many hamsters starring snuff movies.
Yes, I buy servers with OS preinstalled only to test everything works OK before wipe it with our current standards.
It would be very nice if hardware vendors wouldn't be so inclined to the "certified for [whatever os]" and they'd go more for "this and this are the exact hardware specs" and "here comes the standard live-CD we'll ask you for when diagnosing hardware problems".
"I'm not getting how making things better is a failure"
That's because *making* things better is not a failure; it's *trying* to make things better which is the failure, because those environments aren't up for trying *and* making it happen (that's why they feel they need to change their processes in first place).
"If you're crap at it, and in fact make things worse it might be. Luckily, some of us aren't so crap."
Yeah, whatever.