Go read up on Lefthand's SAN/iQ sometime, that's pretty much what that does. It's essentially network raid, turns a bunch of smaller SAN devices into a distributed network.
See, we don't have any 2k3 servers either:-). Couldn't see any benefits to it that we needed so we're currently running about a dozen windows 2000 servers. And if they seriously do de-activate when you change hardware we'll be taking a far more serious look at whether linux can do a better job for us when we do come to upgrade. If the worst happens and you end up in a disaster recovery situation the last thing you want is to have product activation pop up part way through.
We're already investigating a Sun Solaris box as a central filestore, purely because ZFS doesn't come with the rediculous limitations of Microsoft's Shadow Copy, and because of the reliability benefits of ZFS. You have to wonder what Microsoft are playing at when a windows admin is having to take a serious look at Unix and Samba because they can do a better and more reliable job of hosting your files on a windows network.
I thought the same about the fine, but then... is it unreasonable that those 25 songs will be shared that many times?
Over the next 3-4 years, how many times will the songs she uploaded on the net be shared amongst others? That's the real problem when you place material online, there's no way to get it back. Those 25 songs may be shared and shared again over and over for some time to come. So on those grounds the RIAA does have a case.
Of course, I'm a firm believer that none of this would have happened had the recording industry done the sensible thing when Napster arrived and created a way to legally provide the same service. Years later there's still nothing to touch the original Napster and that grates.
What the holy crap? How in gods name did this get modded insightfull on Slashdot? What he's done is try to give an idiots guide to QoS (Quality of Service), unfortunately it appears he didn't realise how big the idiots get around here.
QoS is the reason you're able to get megabits of bandwidth. It's the reason VoIP works at all (that's phones over the net). Without QoS filtering those video containing e-mails would use up all the bandwidth you need to watch live videos or have phone conversations. Every ISP on the planet uses it, it's fundamental to their ability to provide a decent experience to you on your megabit line.
So, if your e-mail CONTAINS video, it's treated just like every other e-mail - as non urgent traffic that the ISP can happily throttle back while real time applications like streaming video or audio can get the bandwidth they need. Kind of useful if someone needs to make a 911 call don't you think?
Try engaging the brain before slagging off people that know an awful lot more about this than you do.
Yes, but if you go to a site that has a page optimised for mobiles, it will usually have far less graphics and text than the regular site. Even if they compress the graphics, the full page is going to be far bigger than the original mobile one would have been.
They can strip out spaces and compress as many graphics as they like on that original page. The download is still going to be many times bigger than the optimised PDA version.
Hmm... I wonder how this fits in with Vodafone's charging.
By breaking the functionality that allows operators to display the mobile optimised pages, they are forcing people to download more content. Even if they only charge for the amount transmitted to the mobile after they've processed it, that's still likely to be significantly more data than people would have had with the optimised pages. And if they charge for the size of the original page (and I wouldn't put it past them), they really are ripping people off.
Either way, I would not be happy with this change if I was on a limited data tarrif.
Yeah, RDP is pretty good over slow links. Was that using Dameware's mirror driver on the graphics? I know their performance shot up a notch when they released that, but haven't tested it on a slow link.
If you're maintaining servers, any RDP client will probably do. If you need to get to clients though you need something like dameware, just a case of finding one with good compression.
Also, if you're just using web browsing over a slow connection you might want to look at onspeed (www.onspeed.com). They install a small client on your PC and compress everything that's sent to you. If you ramp the compression right up graphics look pretty crap, but websites load much faster.
Why everyone's wasting space talking about phone line options I don't know. He's a hospital network admin who's been online since 1984. It's safe to assume he's researched the options pretty thoroughly and 28.8k is as good as he can get.
At those speeds, forget trying to work directly, you're better off with a remote desktop product. If the budget allows Citrix is meant to be very good, however for a smaller outlay, Dameware's Mini Remote control is superb. For $89.95 you get a remote control program you can use to manage all your desktops at work *and* you can install a copy at home as well.
It supports the RDP protocol which I *think* is better for slow connections, and has it's own driver for true remote access. For best performance just set it to 800x600 in 256 colours, and it even has a set of defaults for 28.8k connections.
I've been using it for 2 years and couldn't imagine running a network without it now. If you're interested, check out http://www.dameware.com/
So you're complaining about a different product, just for being a different product? It's not that you can't do your job with it, just that it means learning a slightly different way to do it?
Do you also complain about people fitting different handles to their doors? I bet differing brands of kettles or washing machines are a constant nightmare for you, and for the love of god don't try to drive abroad, I think the shock could kill you.
Getting back on topic, it's a different program, you have to expect a few differences. The fact that it uses a properly documented format, with correct math is far more important imo.
The only reason this was a valid tactic for SCO was because the company was on the way out anyway - there was nothing to loose. The lawsuit was never going to win and they knew that, it was purely there to spread FUD about linux and make a tidy packet for a few individuals.
The circumstances just aren't there for 'normal' companies to do this.
We typically sit on patches for a couple of months. Then we roll them out to IT, if it doesn't crash those computers we'll roll them out further. In the last two years we've only been vulnerable to a single MS advisory, and needed to patch more quickly.
How? We use group policy and IE security zones so that only sites IT have authorised can run scripts. It's about ten minutes work a week to maintain now, and while there's still some risk that a trusted site could host a vulnerability, the risk is small enough we can sleep soundly at night despite having a hundred or so workstations in an unpatched state.
The upside: Haven't had a security breach, or problem with a MS patch in two years.
I thought the whole point of VMware was that it made the virtual machines hardware independant. One of the benefits of it is that if a server dies you can replace it with anything and can still run the original image without having to reinstall drivers, etc...
huh? That's news to me. You can download vmware appliances from their site and run them on any machine with vmware player. VMware includes a virtual cpu, the host cpu is irrelevant.
I don't know whether it's technically an emulator or not, but it's close enough for me.
Of course they're human. You'd be as well arguing that the french aren't human because they're taught differently to us, and our basic urges to reproduce and spread are more instinctive than taught anyway.
Artificially grown doesn't mean not human. If the original cells are 100% human, then the end result will be, the outside environment won't change that.
For a sci-fi author he seems to be suffering from a lack of imagination. I can't argue with his arguments about the energy needed to transport one person in their lifetime, nor the social and engergy problems transporting a community. However I feel a more productive route to colonisation will be to explore the cloning / hibernation techniques.
Research into hibernation and resuscitation may be enough to extend a lifespan by an order of magnitude, if it works out this has to be one of the favoured techniques.
However it may be that even this will not be required. Researchers can already create artificial uterus' and have begun to gestate embryo's inside. This appears to work, but researchers are tied up by regulations. Japan are also experimenting with robot teachers. Put these together and do we really need to transport fully grown humans?
This would seem to me to be the most promising avenue for space colonisation. Instead of shipping huge colonies of people, a robotic ship is sent out, with a stock of cells to be used for growing artificual uterus', and a stock of fertilised eggs to grow the colonists, with computers overseeing their growth and education.
Ok, they won't have a society anything like we're used to, but is that really necessary? Provide them with the basic tools to survive on the planet, use computer learning to give them a kick start so they're not having to revert to the stone age, and let their community work things out for themselves.
I'm going to add the same comments here I made on Jamie's site:
MS say you can't "work around technical limitations" of the product. So:
1) I can't use an external spell checker to make sure I'm spelling things right? (Assuming MS don't have a spell checker in the program). 2) I can't link to a web service to display the latest exchange rates in my program? (VS doesn't support exchange rates as standard, it's a technical limitation) 3) I can't design the flow of the program on pen & paper? (I don't believe VS includes drawing tools, nor pen & paper - another technical limitation) 4) I can't link to dll's I or others have written to add extra functionality not possible in express alone?
I'm sure other programmers could come up with better examples than mine, but it seems to me that this clause is going to be hard to enforce without making a mockery of the whole product.
Exactly what is the difference between a technical limitation and a feature they didn't include? What is the definition of a "technical limitation"? And what gives them the right to say what you can & can't do with the product? The car analogy made by others seems very appropriate here, this is like GM selling you a car and then saying "sorry, we don't allow you to tune the engine, or change the colour". The very point of programming is to make the computer do something it couldn't do before, something they're actually encouraging you to do by releasing this product.
Also, doesn't VS have a service pack? Surely that works around several technical limitations? If the licence for visual studio or the service pack doesn't explicitly state it's allowed, then by Microsoft's argument, the EULA prevents users from installing MS' own service pack as it means the customer is working around "technical limitations" in the product.
According to MS, SP1 "offers customers improvements in responsiveness, stability and performance for Visual Studio 2005". Sounds like that's getting round several technical limitations to me.
Ditto the SDK: "In order to use Visual C++ Express to build Win32 applications and leverage the powerful set of core Windows API components, you'll need to download and install the Microsoft Platform SDK.". So, without the SDK, VS Express has numerous technical limitations, and Microsoft actively encourage you to work around these?
How exactly is an end user supposed to know which "technical limitations" they are allowed to work around, and which they are not?
And how is this different from reading documentation online and finding out how to extend visual studio?
Are developers expected to check every idea past microsoft now to find out if they're allowed to implement it?
Surely a good lawyer could take this and point out that the EULA is nonsensical?
And finally, the piece de resistance: If the EULA says you can't work around technical limitations in VS express, I don't see how you have a problem so long as you personally don't use VS Express.
MS actually gave Jamie a full licence of Visual Studio. Provided he only uses his program with that and not the express version he's in the clear.
The EULA at worse restricts how you personally use the program. It doesn't say anything to prevent you developing components for others to use, "technical limitations" become irrelevant:D
Here at work we use IE6 on XP SP2 workstations and not a single one of those vulnerabilities affects us.
Why? Because we don't let IE run scripts of any kind unless it's from a site we trust. IE has had security zones for years yet hardly anyone uses them. A single group policy object enforces our list of trusted sites, nobody's computer can run javascript on any site we've not already decided is safe.
Ok, there's a small risk of someone hacking one of our trusted sites, but I can live with that.
So far we've had 2 years of uninterrupted browsing, with nobody at our company getting a single piece of malware on their machine.
And the best bit: It's surprisingly low maintenance. We get maybe one request a month now to add a new site to the list.
lol, touche. Those things were bloody stupid. Took about 30 seconds of me using my first iMac to spot that not knowing which way was 'up' was a bad idea.
First impressions of the iphone UI though makes it look like a very polished application.
Slashdot Mirror
Go read up on Lefthand's SAN/iQ sometime, that's pretty much what that does. It's essentially network raid, turns a bunch of smaller SAN devices into a distributed network.
See, we don't have any 2k3 servers either :-). Couldn't see any benefits to it that we needed so we're currently running about a dozen windows 2000 servers. And if they seriously do de-activate when you change hardware we'll be taking a far more serious look at whether linux can do a better job for us when we do come to upgrade. If the worst happens and you end up in a disaster recovery situation the last thing you want is to have product activation pop up part way through.
We're already investigating a Sun Solaris box as a central filestore, purely because ZFS doesn't come with the rediculous limitations of Microsoft's Shadow Copy, and because of the reliability benefits of ZFS. You have to wonder what Microsoft are playing at when a windows admin is having to take a serious look at Unix and Samba because they can do a better and more reliable job of hosting your files on a windows network.
According to the article, server 2008 is built on Vista and includes product activation. o_0
Well that pretty much guarantees it's not coming on this network any time soon.
I thought the same about the fine, but then... is it unreasonable that those 25 songs will be shared that many times?
Over the next 3-4 years, how many times will the songs she uploaded on the net be shared amongst others? That's the real problem when you place material online, there's no way to get it back. Those 25 songs may be shared and shared again over and over for some time to come. So on those grounds the RIAA does have a case.
Of course, I'm a firm believer that none of this would have happened had the recording industry done the sensible thing when Napster arrived and created a way to legally provide the same service. Years later there's still nothing to touch the original Napster and that grates.
What the holy crap? How in gods name did this get modded insightfull on Slashdot? What he's done is try to give an idiots guide to QoS (Quality of Service), unfortunately it appears he didn't realise how big the idiots get around here.
QoS is the reason you're able to get megabits of bandwidth. It's the reason VoIP works at all (that's phones over the net). Without QoS filtering those video containing e-mails would use up all the bandwidth you need to watch live videos or have phone conversations. Every ISP on the planet uses it, it's fundamental to their ability to provide a decent experience to you on your megabit line.
So, if your e-mail CONTAINS video, it's treated just like every other e-mail - as non urgent traffic that the ISP can happily throttle back while real time applications like streaming video or audio can get the bandwidth they need. Kind of useful if someone needs to make a 911 call don't you think?
Try engaging the brain before slagging off people that know an awful lot more about this than you do.
roflmao! Google, stupid? Go look at their earnings, and the figures on the strength of their brand image and come say that again.
Quick, someone inform Jack Thompson. With any luck he'll get us access to some decent stuff :D
Yes, but if you go to a site that has a page optimised for mobiles, it will usually have far less graphics and text than the regular site. Even if they compress the graphics, the full page is going to be far bigger than the original mobile one would have been.
For example, compare the original BBC news page with their version optimised for PDA's:
Original: http://news.bbc.co.uk/
PDA: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/default.stm
They can strip out spaces and compress as many graphics as they like on that original page. The download is still going to be many times bigger than the optimised PDA version.
Hmm... I wonder how this fits in with Vodafone's charging.
By breaking the functionality that allows operators to display the mobile optimised pages, they are forcing people to download more content. Even if they only charge for the amount transmitted to the mobile after they've processed it, that's still likely to be significantly more data than people would have had with the optimised pages. And if they charge for the size of the original page (and I wouldn't put it past them), they really are ripping people off.
Either way, I would not be happy with this change if I was on a limited data tarrif.
Yeah, RDP is pretty good over slow links. Was that using Dameware's mirror driver on the graphics? I know their performance shot up a notch when they released that, but haven't tested it on a slow link.
If you're maintaining servers, any RDP client will probably do. If you need to get to clients though you need something like dameware, just a case of finding one with good compression.
Also, if you're just using web browsing over a slow connection you might want to look at onspeed (www.onspeed.com). They install a small client on your PC and compress everything that's sent to you. If you ramp the compression right up graphics look pretty crap, but websites load much faster.
Why everyone's wasting space talking about phone line options I don't know. He's a hospital network admin who's been online since 1984. It's safe to assume he's researched the options pretty thoroughly and 28.8k is as good as he can get.
At those speeds, forget trying to work directly, you're better off with a remote desktop product. If the budget allows Citrix is meant to be very good, however for a smaller outlay, Dameware's Mini Remote control is superb. For $89.95 you get a remote control program you can use to manage all your desktops at work *and* you can install a copy at home as well.
It supports the RDP protocol which I *think* is better for slow connections, and has it's own driver for true remote access. For best performance just set it to 800x600 in 256 colours, and it even has a set of defaults for 28.8k connections.
I've been using it for 2 years and couldn't imagine running a network without it now. If you're interested, check out http://www.dameware.com/
So you're complaining about a different product, just for being a different product? It's not that you can't do your job with it, just that it means learning a slightly different way to do it?
Do you also complain about people fitting different handles to their doors? I bet differing brands of kettles or washing machines are a constant nightmare for you, and for the love of god don't try to drive abroad, I think the shock could kill you.
Getting back on topic, it's a different program, you have to expect a few differences. The fact that it uses a properly documented format, with correct math is far more important imo.
... that's seriously GOOD coffee. Anyone got the address?
AAAOOOOOOOOOOBBAAAAHHHHH
:)
ROFLMAO. If I had mod points you'd be getting all of them
No, because Novell aren't suicidal.
The only reason this was a valid tactic for SCO was because the company was on the way out anyway - there was nothing to loose. The lawsuit was never going to win and they knew that, it was purely there to spread FUD about linux and make a tidy packet for a few individuals.
The circumstances just aren't there for 'normal' companies to do this.
We typically sit on patches for a couple of months. Then we roll them out to IT, if it doesn't crash those computers we'll roll them out further. In the last two years we've only been vulnerable to a single MS advisory, and needed to patch more quickly.
How? We use group policy and IE security zones so that only sites IT have authorised can run scripts. It's about ten minutes work a week to maintain now, and while there's still some risk that a trusted site could host a vulnerability, the risk is small enough we can sleep soundly at night despite having a hundred or so workstations in an unpatched state.
The upside: Haven't had a security breach, or problem with a MS patch in two years.
I thought the whole point of VMware was that it made the virtual machines hardware independant. One of the benefits of it is that if a server dies you can replace it with anything and can still run the original image without having to reinstall drivers, etc...
huh? That's news to me. You can download vmware appliances from their site and run them on any machine with vmware player. VMware includes a virtual cpu, the host cpu is irrelevant.
I don't know whether it's technically an emulator or not, but it's close enough for me.
Replace Cheer with Mourn, and Hope with "Hope to god" and I'll take a and b please :D
Of course they're human. You'd be as well arguing that the french aren't human because they're taught differently to us, and our basic urges to reproduce and spread are more instinctive than taught anyway.
Artificially grown doesn't mean not human. If the original cells are 100% human, then the end result will be, the outside environment won't change that.
For a sci-fi author he seems to be suffering from a lack of imagination. I can't argue with his arguments about the energy needed to transport one person in their lifetime, nor the social and engergy problems transporting a community. However I feel a more productive route to colonisation will be to explore the cloning / hibernation techniques.
Research into hibernation and resuscitation may be enough to extend a lifespan by an order of magnitude, if it works out this has to be one of the favoured techniques.
However it may be that even this will not be required. Researchers can already create artificial uterus' and have begun to gestate embryo's inside. This appears to work, but researchers are tied up by regulations. Japan are also experimenting with robot teachers. Put these together and do we really need to transport fully grown humans?
This would seem to me to be the most promising avenue for space colonisation. Instead of shipping huge colonies of people, a robotic ship is sent out, with a stock of cells to be used for growing artificual uterus', and a stock of fertilised eggs to grow the colonists, with computers overseeing their growth and education.
Ok, they won't have a society anything like we're used to, but is that really necessary? Provide them with the basic tools to survive on the planet, use computer learning to give them a kick start so they're not having to revert to the stone age, and let their community work things out for themselves.
I'm going to add the same comments here I made on Jamie's site:
:D
MS say you can't "work around technical limitations" of the product. So:
1) I can't use an external spell checker to make sure I'm spelling things right? (Assuming MS don't have a spell checker in the program).
2) I can't link to a web service to display the latest exchange rates in my program? (VS doesn't support exchange rates as standard, it's a technical limitation)
3) I can't design the flow of the program on pen & paper? (I don't believe VS includes drawing tools, nor pen & paper - another technical limitation)
4) I can't link to dll's I or others have written to add extra functionality not possible in express alone?
I'm sure other programmers could come up with better examples than mine, but it seems to me that this clause is going to be hard to enforce without making a mockery of the whole product.
Exactly what is the difference between a technical limitation and a feature they didn't include? What is the definition of a "technical limitation"? And what gives them the right to say what you can & can't do with the product? The car analogy made by others seems very appropriate here, this is like GM selling you a car and then saying "sorry, we don't allow you to tune the engine, or change the colour". The very point of programming is to make the computer do something it couldn't do before, something they're actually encouraging you to do by releasing this product.
Also, doesn't VS have a service pack? Surely that works around several technical limitations? If the licence for visual studio or the service pack doesn't explicitly state it's allowed, then by Microsoft's argument, the EULA prevents users from installing MS' own service pack as it means the customer is working around "technical limitations" in the product.
According to MS, SP1 "offers customers improvements in responsiveness, stability and performance for Visual Studio 2005". Sounds like that's getting round several technical limitations to me.
Ditto the SDK: "In order to use Visual C++ Express to build Win32 applications and leverage the powerful set of core Windows API components, you'll need to download and install the Microsoft Platform SDK.". So, without the SDK, VS Express has numerous technical limitations, and Microsoft actively encourage you to work around these?
How exactly is an end user supposed to know which "technical limitations" they are allowed to work around, and which they are not?
And how is this different from reading documentation online and finding out how to extend visual studio?
Are developers expected to check every idea past microsoft now to find out if they're allowed to implement it?
Surely a good lawyer could take this and point out that the EULA is nonsensical?
And finally, the piece de resistance:
If the EULA says you can't work around technical limitations in VS express, I don't see how you have a problem so long as you personally don't use VS Express.
MS actually gave Jamie a full licence of Visual Studio. Provided he only uses his program with that and not the express version he's in the clear.
The EULA at worse restricts how you personally use the program. It doesn't say anything to prevent you developing components for others to use, "technical limitations" become irrelevant
Here at work we use IE6 on XP SP2 workstations and not a single one of those vulnerabilities affects us.
Why? Because we don't let IE run scripts of any kind unless it's from a site we trust. IE has had security zones for years yet hardly anyone uses them. A single group policy object enforces our list of trusted sites, nobody's computer can run javascript on any site we've not already decided is safe.
Ok, there's a small risk of someone hacking one of our trusted sites, but I can live with that.
So far we've had 2 years of uninterrupted browsing, with nobody at our company getting a single piece of malware on their machine.
And the best bit: It's surprisingly low maintenance. We get maybe one request a month now to add a new site to the list.
lol, touche. Those things were bloody stupid. Took about 30 seconds of me using my first iMac to spot that not knowing which way was 'up' was a bad idea.
First impressions of the iphone UI though makes it look like a very polished application.