I'm with you but on one thing: physicists make great managers... only when managing other physicists. The problem about management was never being smart enough but being dumb enough and good physicists have big trouble understanding others' stupidness. They can understand and manage ignorance but not stupidness.
Individual prosperity, yes, is a matter of luck (among other things). But building a prosper society is far from a lucky endevour: it's a matter of honesty and investment.
Oh, and by the way, say what you want, you do vote republican (see how that's not a political label but the statement of a fact) and you won't get to be rich, not even by your bogged down version of what being rich is.
You didn't say 1%? My ass. You explictly said "planning to be rich", not wealthy ir self sufficient or anything. What any other meaning do you think it has, Mr True Scotsman?
So the problem is not the liability but the stupidness of the judicial system that allows for bogus claims. Correct the problem, not something that happens to be vagely related.
As long as he gets utterly rich if everything goes according his plans, he must be the one cleaning the mess if his company throws shit to a fan
So you are "planning" to be rich? Good luck with that.
SPOILER ALERT: you won't.
And I don't mean it in a purely statisti;c way, I mean it in your precise case: just reading your previous post majes obvious you don't have what it takes to go from middke class to the 1%. But, hey! keep dreaming and voting republican. It's people like you what keeps the mill running.
Please reread: all of them come from at least upper middle class like in, you know, "went to an exclusive private school" or "he was able to start his first business with a meagre million or two lent by his uncle Matthew that happened to be rich and with contacts".
Please show me Forbes 400 examples coming from a below the poverity line background.
Sorry, you should enhance your reading comprehension because the article you cite says that in fact, in order to make into the Forbes 400 list your best bet is being lucky in the bussiness sector you go into AND come at least from an upper middle class family.
A strike is the worker's last resort. You seem to forget that the worker doesn't collect his wages while on strike and that he hasn't a nice cushion to sustain his position.
So what you say is "standard procedure": you think there're reasons to strike and the ones that have to negotiate it make sure they have things they can spare to allow for negotiation to move forward.
"Discussion of technological breakthroughs is meaningless without a discussion of the cost."
Discussion of cost is meaningless without allowing those technological breakthroughs achieve savings by means of scale and refinement.
"And in discussing costs, I mean real costs. Subsidies to the renewable energies and penalties/fees to the fossil fuel based energies are distortions"
Just like when your US overlords decided that the country needed roads and telephones all over the territory and by doing so ruined the country for the decades to come?
They call investment when you put first the money and only afterwards you take the fruits.
You are absolutly ignorant about what you are talking about, so you'd better shouldn't comment on this, or you are just trolling.
Anyway, and just for the record, nothiing you say is either true or makes sense.
Debian modifies sources in two ways: 1) in order to stick to Linux Filesystem standard policies and in order to stick to Debian's own conventions. 2) in order to backport security fixes on Stable. Anyway, is more conservative than, say, Red Hat.
Debian only activates services if this can be done in a safe and working way.
Debian is the distribution most easily and problemless to upgrade that I know of, certainly well over Red Hat, Slackware or LFS.
"If you have to go to a source code you haven't previously looked at to find the solution, it's likely to take you quite awhile."
Truly yes -or you can be lucky, it happened to me once, but you can't count on it.
"A good support desk is likely to have already encountered the problem"
Yes. But if that's the case, a reputable company would have worked on the underlying problem and then it would be already patched/known, so no need to resort to helpdesk.
In the end, I'm not against support, of course it can save you a lot of time. But that's not what paying "vendor support" is for. I -or anyone, can eventually outperform Red Hat with regards to support and you can find little companies all over the world that give good support to local little companies. But you won't find "the" company that offers better support than Red Hat for big companies. Because no IT manager of a big company would ever buy support for X to Y. And this also explains why, for instance, Debian has no place in corporate-world: there's no Debian Corp. to buy support from and such unexistant Debian Corp. can't reach agreements with other software vendor to "certify" against it.
They do. What they don't need is "payed vendor certifications" except for their manager.
"do not need to have certified hardware cause they can perfectly guess what is working just by looking on specifications"
Of course they do. Why they shouldn't? But even then, right now we are entering the 10th damn month! with heavy performance problems on a solution deployed by a big name vendor on a fully certified stack, or just few weeks ago we needed to update the full firmware on some chassis and blades because they weren't even able to power on. There your "certified hardware" goes.
Admins need working hardware, not certified hardware; for the most part a sysadmin worth his salt can figure his way out of the specs and if not, it's just a matter of testing it; if it doesn't work, you return it.
"because all admins are experts in every possible domain."
Of course not. But a competent admin, and moreso a competent admin team are experts in those domains relevant for their business and, much more important, provided proper means, are experts in becoming experts on them, usually at a price tag and with better results than a vendor "gold" support contract.
Caveat: we are talking open source here, since this news is about Red Hat and open source variants taking or not a portion on Red Hat business. Of course, closed source is a different issue and decision takers should pay attention on those differences and the respective value they bring to the table long term.
"for that system you pay the 4 hour or less support costs so that if you need it, you call the vendor and get someone on the phone NOW."
Having someone on the phone by itself only gives you two things: somebody on the phone and the ability to deflect blame to the one on the phone.
But then, your "troubleshooting techniques" shows the kind of professional you are: in your book the answer has to come from somebody else.
Protip: you go to the sources and you debug the problem yourself (I've done it: I've debugged Adaptec's SCSI kernel drivers, for instance). What else do you think your payed support is going to do? One thing is certain: the one on the phone is not going to go to the source to debug the problem... because he's on the phone, not triggering his editor pointing to the sources.
But there's another certain thing: Red Hat is very clever and perfectly knows the managerial mentality and so, they know they are risking nothing "allowing" others access to their sources; no manager will take support for Red Hat from anyone else but Red Hat, no matter what the third party credentials might be.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you but on one thing: physicists make great managers... only when managing other physicists. The problem about management was never being smart enough but being dumb enough and good physicists have big trouble understanding others' stupidness. They can understand and manage ignorance but not stupidness.
And you'll be right. I bet he was talking abour his grandfather, not his girlfriend :)
False and sad that you hold such an opinion.
Individual prosperity, yes, is a matter of luck (among other things). But building a prosper society is far from a lucky endevour: it's a matter of honesty and investment.
Oh, and by the way, say what you want, you do vote republican (see how that's not a political label but the statement of a fact) and you won't get to be rich, not even by your bogged down version of what being rich is.
You didn't say 1%? My ass. You explictly said "planning to be rich", not wealthy ir self sufficient or anything. What any other meaning do you think it has, Mr True Scotsman?
...because he set it upside down.
So the problem is not the liability but the stupidness of the judicial system that allows for bogus claims. Correct the problem, not something that happens to be vagely related.
As long as he gets utterly rich if everything goes according his plans, he must be the one cleaning the mess if his company throws shit to a fan
So you are "planning" to be rich? Good luck with that.
SPOILER ALERT: you won't.
And I don't mean it in a purely statisti;c way, I mean it in your precise case: just reading your previous post majes obvious you don't have what it takes to go from middke class to the 1%. But, hey! keep dreaming and voting republican. It's people like you what keeps the mill running.
Please reread: all of them come from at least upper middle class like in, you know, "went to an exclusive private school" or "he was able to start his first business with a meagre million or two lent by his uncle Matthew that happened to be rich and with contacts".
Please show me Forbes 400 examples coming from a below the poverity line background.
Sorry, you should enhance your reading comprehension because the article you cite says that in fact, in order to make into the Forbes 400 list your best bet is being lucky in the bussiness sector you go into AND come at least from an upper middle class family.
"and those truely responsible for the actions of their organzations must be jailed for the remainder of their natural lives."
I for one welcome our new NSA zombie overlords.
"How do you propose keeping a sysadmin that needs root access to do their job from being able to copy something to a thumb drive?"
In one word: MAC.
Where did you take the "without notice" part?
A strike is the worker's last resort. You seem to forget that the worker doesn't collect his wages while on strike and that he hasn't a nice cushion to sustain his position.
So what you say is "standard procedure": you think there're reasons to strike and the ones that have to negotiate it make sure they have things they can spare to allow for negotiation to move forward.
"Discussion of technological breakthroughs is meaningless without a discussion of the cost."
Discussion of cost is meaningless without allowing those technological breakthroughs achieve savings by means of scale and refinement.
"And in discussing costs, I mean real costs. Subsidies to the renewable energies and penalties/fees to the fossil fuel based energies are distortions"
Just like when your US overlords decided that the country needed roads and telephones all over the territory and by doing so ruined the country for the decades to come?
They call investment when you put first the money and only afterwards you take the fruits.
"I think my bedroom was 28'C on the hottest days and that's without an AC"
Do you mean it can get even higher when you turn on your AC?
Gasp!
I'm in Spain... yesterday it peaked 42ÂC -and I was lucky, that was without AC too!
Easy: a supported version of ls
(which is to say, making the life easier for the sysadmins you already have in your payroll).
"You might as well ask why a Lamborghini cost is six figures since you bought a CitroÃfn C1 last week for less than ten thousand."
Well, for a better car analogy is more like asking why a 16-wheeler is more expensive than my C1.
"If writing games is your passion"
Ask him first how many games has he already written.
If the answer is "nil", then his passion is not writing games. He only thinks so, probably over the wrong information and for the wrong reasons.
"One of the co-workers was pissed at having to work late to pick up this person's slack"
Having?
What if that co-worker were pissed where piss belong -on his manager?
The one that pays the wages is the company, not you so, if the company is OK with paying the money, why should you think otherwise?
Oh, yes, the slave morality were the one strangling you is your coworker, not your boss.
You are absolutly ignorant about what you are talking about, so you'd better shouldn't comment on this, or you are just trolling.
Anyway, and just for the record, nothiing you say is either true or makes sense.
Debian modifies sources in two ways:
1) in order to stick to Linux Filesystem standard policies and in order to stick to Debian's own conventions.
2) in order to backport security fixes on Stable.
Anyway, is more conservative than, say, Red Hat.
Debian only activates services if this can be done in a safe and working way.
Debian is the distribution most easily and problemless to upgrade that I know of, certainly well over Red Hat, Slackware or LFS.
"If you have to go to a source code you haven't previously looked at to find the solution, it's likely to take you quite awhile."
Truly yes -or you can be lucky, it happened to me once, but you can't count on it.
"A good support desk is likely to have already encountered the problem"
Yes. But if that's the case, a reputable company would have worked on the underlying problem and then it would be already patched/known, so no need to resort to helpdesk.
In the end, I'm not against support, of course it can save you a lot of time. But that's not what paying "vendor support" is for. I -or anyone, can eventually outperform Red Hat with regards to support and you can find little companies all over the world that give good support to local little companies. But you won't find "the" company that offers better support than Red Hat for big companies. Because no IT manager of a big company would ever buy support for X to Y. And this also explains why, for instance, Debian has no place in corporate-world: there's no Debian Corp. to buy support from and such unexistant Debian Corp. can't reach agreements with other software vendor to "certify" against it.
"but that's exactly what happens in windows world."
Exactly. I already told that's the way we managed windows. The point is that you think that's the way to go.
"What on Earth are you going on about?"
See my point? That's the result of 30 long years of marketing and unwise management: you don't even know what the heck I'm talking about.
"admins do not need any training"
They do. What they don't need is "payed vendor certifications" except for their manager.
"do not need to have certified hardware cause they can perfectly guess what is working just by looking on specifications"
Of course they do. Why they shouldn't? But even then, right now we are entering the 10th damn month! with heavy performance problems on a solution deployed by a big name vendor on a fully certified stack, or just few weeks ago we needed to update the full firmware on some chassis and blades because they weren't even able to power on. There your "certified hardware" goes.
Admins need working hardware, not certified hardware; for the most part a sysadmin worth his salt can figure his way out of the specs and if not, it's just a matter of testing it; if it doesn't work, you return it.
"because all admins are experts in every possible domain."
Of course not. But a competent admin, and moreso a competent admin team are experts in those domains relevant for their business and, much more important, provided proper means, are experts in becoming experts on them, usually at a price tag and with better results than a vendor "gold" support contract.
Caveat: we are talking open source here, since this news is about Red Hat and open source variants taking or not a portion on Red Hat business. Of course, closed source is a different issue and decision takers should pay attention on those differences and the respective value they bring to the table long term.
"To be honest, I don't know why Redhat ever split fedora off on its own."
For the very same reason Linus abandoned the odd/even versioning for the kernel: to gain exposure for their "beta code".
"for that system you pay the 4 hour or less support costs so that if you need it, you call the vendor and get someone on the phone NOW."
Having someone on the phone by itself only gives you two things: somebody on the phone and the ability to deflect blame to the one on the phone.
But then, your "troubleshooting techniques" shows the kind of professional you are: in your book the answer has to come from somebody else.
Protip: you go to the sources and you debug the problem yourself (I've done it: I've debugged Adaptec's SCSI kernel drivers, for instance). What else do you think your payed support is going to do? One thing is certain: the one on the phone is not going to go to the source to debug the problem... because he's on the phone, not triggering his editor pointing to the sources.
But there's another certain thing: Red Hat is very clever and perfectly knows the managerial mentality and so, they know they are risking nothing "allowing" others access to their sources; no manager will take support for Red Hat from anyone else but Red Hat, no matter what the third party credentials might be.