It's time for your company to seriously examine your outsourcing company's contract with you. The consolidation recommendation obviously did not fully examine the needs of the remote offices. They have to bear some of the brunt of this mistake...or lose their contract with cause.
Server consolidation is great for centralized offices. Until we reach the bandwidth critical mass where the pipe is wider than the need, removing server capabilities from satellite offices is a ridiculous idea. Even if it's a store-n-forward device, you will need local access capabilities.
There is really no excuse for the consultancy making a flub this big. They should either be fired or forced to float the cost difference for their mistake. In the long run, you should look at replacing them anyway. You don't want the company's crown jewels in the hands of incompetents.
The intangible metrics of successful sysadmins primarily involve planning, execution, and prevention. How closely knit is your operation plans to the companies goals? How well were planned migrations and upgrades carried out? What is the field perception of your support skills? How well does your group interact with their peers when working a project or diagnosing a problem? How quickly do you responded to problems? How quickly do you reach for the phone when you are stumped? What are your uptime numbers?
The only quantitative question is your uptime percent. All the rest (most of your job) is QUALITATIVE. There are no metrics for that unless you do customer surveys. This one step, however, often causes more headaches than not.
As a rule, management would be better off having the sales manager run the IT department than the finance manager. No, I'm not recommending that disaster. It's just less of one than leaving the bean counters in charge. In my 23 years of IT experience, finance run IT NEVER WORKS. The best situation is when a diplomat is in charge; not a bean counter, not a schmoozer. IT should be managed by someone who knows how to balance the tangibles with the intangibles; someone who has their finger on the pulse of both perception and reality, diplomacy and vision. Without these skills the company will lose out on the IT war.
Whoever put the bean counter in charge is myopic and deserves to be featured on David Letterman's "Stupid Management Tricks" segment... no wait, that was "Stupid Pet Tricks"...
You need to present a qualitative approach to this "metrics request" (including surveys, if necessary.) If the bean counter doesn't go for it... leave while the market is still good. No one deserves to have to operate under that kind of negative pressure. Trying to grab a flopping fish with oiled hands is not my idea of fun. It will only frustrate you AND your boss. When things go south because of this, it's you who will lose, not the boss. It doesn't matter who the myopic one is, management put him in charge, not you.
The licensing of BSD doesn't gain Apple anything. Everything they could have built on top of BSD they could also build on top of Linux.
Divergence without divulgence. They could tweak the kernel for speed or tightly coupled features not normally available in a UNIX, without HAVING to share the changes. I'm all for sharing, but I won't condemn those who keep secrets either. I like BSD more than GPL. The BSD encourages sharing back but doesn't try and dictate it. Not giving back to the community is bad form but forcing it can be just as bad. A dictator can dictate bad things or good things. The fact still remains that a dictator doesn't allow choice. I like it when projects are offered in both GPL (to protect ownership of the code in general) and a proprietary alternative (to allow for closed commercial adoption, and therefore compensation to the originators.) Unfortunately, a large and loud minority of GPL addicts scream when someone tries to veer from the hard-line "no closed source" coding. You can't dictate good behavior. When you try, you ensure bad (and very vindictive) behavior.
It seems to me that Microsoft has to eventually modernize, and the easiest way would be to drop Windows and go with Linux
I agree with the basic premise, except for the Linux part. Apple has clearly taken the lead in this. The open path for migration for a proprietery OS vendor is through the BSD licensing. It allows for you to close whatever portion of your code changes you see fit. This is why Apple chose the Mach kernel for the base of OS/X. Converting to a standard UNIX-based operating system will help the customer more than anything else they could do.
Microsoft has never been strong on solid, stable, and secure kernel development. A BSD base would be a good next step for them. They could begin there and port the look-n-feel of their Vista. They could even continue using their beloved C:\, D:\ file system nomenclature on top of the native "everything is a directory off of root (/)" structure. They would then have to migrate off of NTFS, which should have been gone a while back. There are several, even GPL-released, file systems that they could negotiate a closed license from some of the IP owners or even use as open (most are inherently securable anyway, even open.) Who known, Microsoft may be the ones to finally break through the adoption barrier of adding ACLs to the UNIX FS as the required default.
I'm no Microsoft fanboy. I've been in this industry since they began and so... do not trust them... at all... They have, however, been producing an incredible tool chain for development in the Visual Studio/C#/SQL Server combination that I have enjoyed as much as the original dBase III/IV before Ashton Tate bit the dust. Granted SQL Server was obtained by questionable trade practices from Sybase, but they have not wrecked it like some of their other partner-then-stab acquisitions. Also, the.Net framework scratches the itch that Java just never reached. If I had a Visual Studio/C#/.Net tool chain for OS/X and Linux/Unix I would be very happy.
With new leadership, it is possible that they are trying to play both smart AND nice. I will, however, be much more comfortable when Balmer sees fit to retire as well.
I am hopeful of these new peace offerings to the development community (notice that I didn't say Linux community...) It would be beneficial for both Microsoft's longevity as well as overall quality of the software industry. Understand, however, that if they string this out and then plunge in the knife like before, Microsoft won't last very long. A dog can only bite the hand that feeds it for so long before you have put it down.
If it were being translated into actual motion (ie robotic prosthetics), instead of left-arrow right-arrow, that would make sense. When you are "typing" you don't want to accidentally swat your neighbor. You are wanting to move something that does not necessarily correspond with body movement.
If this technology gains enough maturity, you should be able to think in modes that correspond to prosthetics, automobiles, earth moving equipment, airplanes, etc... Each mode could be distinct. A left for one mode may mean a slightly different thing as a left for another. So would "lift off and hover 10 feet up"... "now accelerate to sub-light speed..."
This sort of control, if achieved, could bring about novice control systems for complex machinery such as exoskeletons, airplanes, boats, plutonium handlers, etc...
Then, I say "computer, start shower" and my network enabled bathroom kicks on the shower to the temp I like and starts the bathroom radio/TV to my preference.
... then my network enabled shower/TV/radio shorts out and electrocutes me. Then my wife says "Computer, cremate my husband." and the house burns down... etc...
My recommendation is this. A 200 PC shop can (and should) support a full time IT administrator. If you can work the standards at the two shops (where possible) to a common management methodology (standards and such). You can get away with 1.5 for both. With this in mind, I would do a search for a high-end guy, and be ready to pay him. If you don't go cheap, you can more easily pick up some quality talent. Look for someone who knows how to interview the client and build a "strategic direction" for their IT that fully supports their business plans.
There are many things that can streamline support (whether outsourced or in-house). These all need to be analized and recommendations made to the client for future changes and purchases.
One is looking at thin clients using Terminal Services (assuming a Windows shop). This can cut out a huge amount of support headaches.
Another is simplification of the app set. This is, basically, reviewing the various needs of the org, the installed app base, and working to reduce apps with duplicate functionality.
Another option is to look for good enterprise open source apps that can be used to fullfill needs while not overrunning a budget. For instance Compiere is an excelent OSS ERP/CRM app (Enterprise Resource Planning/Customer Relationship Management, basically HR & Sales). You will have to, at present, invest in an Oracle license and optional support contracts, but it is well worth the costs, being cheaper than all other High-end ERP/CRM bunbdles out there. Also, if they don't need the high-end features of MS Office, see if they can use OpenOffice.org as a standard. OSS, however, is not always the way to go. This needs to be looked at carefully for each organization and application in question.
Another thing to consider is a strict (at least as strict as you can get) hardware standard. having fewer target platforms reduces the support nightmares. The only places where the standard should be compromized is on montors and printers, or, possibly CAD tools (pucks, styluses, etc.), if it is an engineering/architectiral firm.
Also, along with the standard build is a hardware refresh policy. Every three years or so, a PC or printer should be replaced. You can spread this out on a monthly basis where you have a sane amount of upgrades to deal with each month. Don't change your target hardware standard more than once a year, though. This limits the installed base to 3 base platforms.
Antivirus and firewalling are absolutely essential. Setup a central antivirus management console on one of the servers and push out updates from there. This reduces the external traffic. For firewall, I recommend Astaro. It has a comparable feature set to a Checkpoint firewall with a fraction of the cost.
These are just some of the options to cosider to bring a site from chaos to sanity. A good admin will bring these skills and experience with him. Feed him well and he'll keep your clients running smoothly.
...elected by a large number of people who agree with his views on this subject. FYI: The 3 branches of government are in a "seperate but equal" configuration with 3 different, but overlapping areas of responsibility. The system is designed with in such a way that each branch has the ability to check another branch that may be a little tilted off center in order to balance the whole ("checks and balances"). The president can veto legislation, appoint judges, and commute sentences. Congress can override vetos, impeach the president, and impeach judges. The courts can strike down unconstitutional laws or executive orders. Etc...
Whether you agree with his position or not, he is doing his job as described. The president has a responsibility to stand true to the values that he represented when elected, or present a good reason to changes that opinion. If someone more liberal gets elected, we would expect him to follow those more liberal beliefs, which is his responsibility. I didn't much like Clinton, but I respected his authority to make the decisions that he did (at least when they were legal). Same with Bush. I would like to see some harsher checks from congress or the courts regarding Bush's views of civil liberties, which may border on the illegal.
In regards to the ES funding, he is simply allowing those who consider ending a conceived life as murder to opt out of having to pay for it. You may not agree to their views, or his, but you have to respect their rights to voice their opinion and not be made to participate in what they consider murder.
Agreed and the whole scientific community needs to sing out on this issue. Science must be defended. Whether they are correct in the end of not, we must trust medical scientists in the field to choose the research topics on which they will focus and ignore the judgments of posturing politicians.
Sure, trust Dr. Mengela. He's such a good chap. Where would we be without him?
Also, remember that embrionic stem cell research is perfectly legal in all 50 states. It's just not funded by the federal government because enough of the population disagrees with the use of federal funds for that purpose. That is democracy at its best. Freedom to explore the possibilities (within reason) without forcing everyone to participate unwillingly.
The speculative conclusions that this "Dr." Curry is spewing out is the same type of garbage that promotes and perpetuates racism; a racism of the worst kind, that sears someones conscience into beleiving that another human being is actually a "sub-human". If we encourage this tripe, we are asking for a return to a master race, nazi, mentality. You must remember that many noble sounding causes were based on these kinds of assumptions. Planned Parenthood, for instance was founded by Margaret Sanger for the purpose of reducing the black population because she viewed it as a threat to white purity and control. READ HER OWN BOOKS if you doubt this! Lobotomies, forced sterilization, and forced infanticide are all promoted and perpetuated by the "noble thoughts" of idiots that are broadcast to the masses as fact.
Mod me down, if you must, but someone has to speak the truth against these monsterous ideas.
...given that the defendant gave the court de facto jurisdiction and then failed to make an appearance?
An Illinois court will never have jurisdiction over a Canadian company, operating completely in Canada. The fact that many US companies/citizens use a Canadian product of their own free will does not EVER subject that company to US jurisdiction. If, however, a criminal act was carried out that effect a US company/citizen, an Illinois court can go through the proper channels to request the Canadian government to extradite the alledged criminals for trial within the US.
This judge is so far out of line that he should brought up before an impeachment hearing. He's dabling in international law in a way that can have severe consequences.
On this particular project, I'll have to disagree. Mr. Reiser is not just a coder/developer. He has built the ReiserFS/4 code from the ground up based on advanced mathematical theory, with full test case scenarios, and thorough benchmarking. He is a high-end designer/engineer and chief architect and visionary of a very complex project. This project represents the cornerstone of, arguably, the most critical piece in any successful OS, the file system. His is not the only solution, but it is an incredibly good one. Though it can, and will, be picked up if the worst comes to pass, it will be hard to replace his vision and tenacity to excelence. These are not minor consequences in regards to the Reiser4 project.
The ReiserFS code (being v 3.x) is well known and stable in the kernel. If the worst case scenario should happen, its maintenance, and even extension, will be simple enough.
At stake is the Reiser4 Code, which has not yet been included into the kernel due to what appears to be mostly political bickering over source code formatting standards. It is still in a mostly beta state, but has potential for much better performance. This, also, is GLPed, so it is possible for this to be picked up by a major player (SuSe, RedHat, etc.) or advanced team. Being that it is not yet widely relied upon, it is not much of an issue with the status quo.
There is no need to ask for a release. If it turns out that Reiser is guilty of murder and his team disbands, the GPL source is open for use and extension. Being that it is GPLed, it is already available in that sense. It is by common curtesy that we don't fork someone else's code. With the ongoing losing battle to get Reiser and his team to use kernal-approved coding styles so that it can get included into the kernel, forking of this project has come up more than once. Hopefully the following 2 things will happen:
His estranged wife will be found, alive and well, and
He will give up on the pride issue and reformat his, otherwise, excellent code.
I hope that at least the first one will come about.
Having managed or assisted in innumerable cycle and incremental upgrades due to version changes of one piece or another over the last 22 years, I can tell you that these costs are quite valid.
The whole idea of attrition upgrade is untenable when a MS OS or Office upgrade is involved. The two overridding issues are compatibility and supportability.
Compatibility issues arise due to such things as new features of office version not being usable by older versions, thus, eventually forcing an accross the board updrage. Also, there are often changes in the way that the new OS networking integrates with the existing infrastructure. This can cause hard to find issues cropping into the network. These types of problems can slowly build up, and eventually force an accross the board upgrade. Also, simple changes in the user interface create innumerable support headaches when there are more than one OS/Office version floating around on the floor.
For large organizations, the only tenable solution is the Enterprise or Site licensing clauses that allow them to continue putting out PCs with the existing standard (such as XP & Office 2003) until they are forced to upgrade. In this way, they can slowly (with attrition) buy hardware that will support the new software without yet deploying the new software. When all the support pieces are in place and enough of the hardware has been replaced, then a large project can be launched to upgrade all the users to the new software, replacing the remaining low-end hardware at the same time. This also entails internal and commercial application upgrades to take care of compatibility issues. With a well thought out plan in place and no hitches in rollout (which always occur) the low end price per PC might be attained.
Smaller organizations do not have the leverage (or deep enough pockets) for the site licensing. This forces them to go with a mixed environment as they buy new or replacement PCs. For a while, such changes can work, until the level of pain forces them to do more aggressive upgrades. Since they don't have the ability to do things on a mass scale to reduce per PC costs (upgrade and rollout labor, hardware costs, and licensing), they are forced into the eventual high end cost, as noted in the article.
In reality, the quoted costs for upgrade have been fairly consistent over the years. These issues have existed since the beginning of this industry. Although hardware costs have generally decreased, software has gone up to fill in the gap.
What never ceases to amaze me is the fact that these figures still suprise people. This is very, very old news.
As an aside, if I were given carte blanche with the IT direction (and budget) of a large corporation, I would use the upgrade budget to:
Hire a large group of seasoned programmers that can navigate in both the commercial and OOS worlds,
Develop replacement software for the commercial or in-house apps that are Windows-bound (making parallel Win/OSS versions),
Develop a standard set of OSS corporate desktops to run the apps,
Begin migrating, department at a time, onto the new environment.
No, I'm not ignorant of the costs. It will initially be a larger cost than the upgrade to Vista, without question. Long term, however, support and upgrade costs become much lower. I would rather spend a bit more now to save a large amount over the long term. Strategically, it makes for a more agile IT department that has the ability, because of its investment in good programmers, instead of commercial software, to adjust quickly to new needs or challenges.
There will always be a need for commercial services (spam black listing, virus definition updates, specialty programming, etc.). The OS and, for the most part, office productivity and databases, however, have become simple commodities, and should be treated as so. High-end databases, such as Oracle will still be needed, at least for now, as
First, identify the tools (software & hardware) you will be using. THEN, see which boards are 1) recommended and 2) of good reputation with said software+hardware (review sites & blogs are good places to search). Look for reported compatibility problems and see if the vendor has corrected them. After you get done with that, you will have a very short list of boards you KNOW are working in the field.
I've been programming on both Linux and Windows for some time and haven't found a better IDE than Visual Studio 2005.
I'll have to agree. Although I mostly hate anything Microsoft (for philisophical as well as stability issues) I have not found a better programming environment. Granted it is HUGELY geared towards a.Net-specific environment. Any IDE environment that you can still stand after spending 10-12 hours a day staring at it passes the usability test.
I'm interested in the responses here because I've been looking for something good under Linux as well. So far, the comments don't look promising.
There's no valid scientific definition of life and death.
That would be correct.
This is what the stem cell debate is all about, really. Religious people feel that life is a holy, special thing, and that human beings are unique due to divine will.
This is also correct.
If a guy in a lab coat can take cells from inside my body and grow a new person, what makes me special? Life becomes just a mechanical process, a loose description for a certain type of interaction between atoms.
This would not be correct. If a guy in a lab coat CAN take cells from inside my body and grow a new person, then he just figured out how to instantiate a living human. That human still has his own life, which STILL cannot be defined properly by science. He becomes a distinct being with rights and value.
The ethical/religious issues with cloning center around the following:
Creating a clone whose life gets abused or terminated for scientific research.
Creating a clone that has life but is horribly deformed or goes through an otherwise miserable life because of scientific blunders or miscalculations in the cloning process that mess up the DNA or things that help control the DNA.
Sometimes the path of knowledge can be the path of cruelty. Use the Nazi medical "programs" on the Jews as an example of the thirst for knowledge gone awry. If the learning process involves cruel conditions for human life, we should look for other paths to solve our problems, such as the one mentioned in TFA. All-in-all Adult stem cell research is far more advanced AND SUCCESSFULL than embrionic stem cell research. The vast majority of results from embrionic research involves horrible failure and side effects (cancer, for instance).
Our objections to embrionic research (including cloning) are actually very similar to the far left animal rights activists except that our focus is on human life, not animals. To sum up a few of my favorite comparisons on left vs. right political/moral stances on things (from a semi-right-winger's perspective), consider the following:
LEFT:
Wants to protect lower species from abuse and cruelty.
Wants to protect guilty criminals from execution (considered cruel).
Doesn't care much about pre-birth life. Considers personal choice or convienience as more important.
RIGHT:
Wants to reduce animal cruelty, but will allow limited and controlled testing to help humanity.
Supports highly restricted capital punishment of the guilty. (Justice sometimes requires the ending of someone's life that is bent on evil to protect the innocent.)
Wants to protect innocent human life, once conceived.
To sum it up (again from the right-winger's perspective) we see the left (in general) valueing animal life and hardened criminals as more important than the innocent. This is, of course, not the entire picture, as there are right-wing wackos who DO follow the stereotypes (though they are few in number) and most left-wingers are much more pragmatic that the typical left-wing stereotypes. As a population, we are all much closer to center and share more common views than the politicos want you to know. in general, it is more about who wants control than what we beleive. The right has leaders who have said "this is the only way to reach our goals" and the left leaders have done the same. We generally have the same goals, just different methods to get there. If we could stop trying to wrest control from each other, we could come to a concensus and get things done!
Although it may be cost prohibitive, the concepts used when cooling a computer through liquid emersion may do well in this sort of environment. If the expelled heat of the computers is not enough to keep the liquid up to optimal temperature, you can conserve some energy by utilizing the excess heat from the refrigerant system. This method can also be used to raise the "PC-tank" environment up to optimal for a "cold boot" (sorry, could't resist.) The expelled heat of the computers will add to the load of the refrigeration system as a whole and needs to be calculated into the whole power efficiency equation.
There are some tools available. I always wrote my own.
Get one of the tools listed by other commenters, though. It will be much quicker.
If the former programmers were "macro happy" it is very difficult to decode, but with time, a lot of paper to map it out, and even more patients, you can get it done.
The main thing is to get into the head of the previous programmers and find out why every table, macro, or other object was there. Don't make assumptions, it could bite you bad.
Also, make backups before and after major changes and keep dated historical copies. A large Access database can become very unweildy and overwrite code, tables, etc. as it grows. I have had the code to one form cross link to another with weird errors, as an example of some of Access craziness. (BTW, this has been the case through v.2003)
If management is open to the idea, a gradual shift to SQL Express (or the older MSDE) is worth the pain. You can use the existing Access front end with a somewhat gradual migration. If this is an option, keep reading:
Remember that Access will try to pull the entire dataset into memory from SQL Server if you build an Access query on SQL tables. So, work on creating SQL Server View, Stored Procedures, or User Defined Functions instead.
Learn efficient SQL Server SP methodologies. It will help speed things up and use less memory.
Once you have ALL the tables (that are needed) and as much of the logic as possible shifted to SQL Server. Start looking at a better user interface than Access. C# (or even VB.Net) is really good for building a solid business oriented front-end and works well with SQL server once you've got the hang of the interface. I recommend it highly. I also recommend using a.Net 2.0 flavor, as the 1.1 stuff is way too slow.
Good luck with your project. If you need any help, reply to this message and we can talk.
Slashdot Mirror
It's time for your company to seriously examine your outsourcing company's contract with you. The consolidation recommendation obviously did not fully examine the needs of the remote offices. They have to bear some of the brunt of this mistake ...or lose their contract with cause.
Server consolidation is great for centralized offices. Until we reach the bandwidth critical mass where the pipe is wider than the need, removing server capabilities from satellite offices is a ridiculous idea. Even if it's a store-n-forward device, you will need local access capabilities.
There is really no excuse for the consultancy making a flub this big. They should either be fired or forced to float the cost difference for their mistake. In the long run, you should look at replacing them anyway. You don't want the company's crown jewels in the hands of incompetents.
It is, however, very entertaining to ask such questions here...
The intangible metrics of successful sysadmins primarily involve planning, execution, and prevention. How closely knit is your operation plans to the companies goals? How well were planned migrations and upgrades carried out? What is the field perception of your support skills? How well does your group interact with their peers when working a project or diagnosing a problem? How quickly do you responded to problems? How quickly do you reach for the phone when you are stumped? What are your uptime numbers?
The only quantitative question is your uptime percent. All the rest (most of your job) is QUALITATIVE. There are no metrics for that unless you do customer surveys. This one step, however, often causes more headaches than not.
As a rule, management would be better off having the sales manager run the IT department than the finance manager. No, I'm not recommending that disaster. It's just less of one than leaving the bean counters in charge. In my 23 years of IT experience, finance run IT NEVER WORKS. The best situation is when a diplomat is in charge; not a bean counter, not a schmoozer. IT should be managed by someone who knows how to balance the tangibles with the intangibles; someone who has their finger on the pulse of both perception and reality, diplomacy and vision. Without these skills the company will lose out on the IT war.
Whoever put the bean counter in charge is myopic and deserves to be featured on David Letterman's "Stupid Management Tricks" segment... no wait, that was "Stupid Pet Tricks"...
You need to present a qualitative approach to this "metrics request" (including surveys, if necessary.) If the bean counter doesn't go for it... leave while the market is still good. No one deserves to have to operate under that kind of negative pressure. Trying to grab a flopping fish with oiled hands is not my idea of fun. It will only frustrate you AND your boss. When things go south because of this, it's you who will lose, not the boss. It doesn't matter who the myopic one is, management put him in charge, not you.
Divergence without divulgence. They could tweak the kernel for speed or tightly coupled features not normally available in a UNIX, without HAVING to share the changes. I'm all for sharing, but I won't condemn those who keep secrets either. I like BSD more than GPL. The BSD encourages sharing back but doesn't try and dictate it. Not giving back to the community is bad form but forcing it can be just as bad. A dictator can dictate bad things or good things. The fact still remains that a dictator doesn't allow choice. I like it when projects are offered in both GPL (to protect ownership of the code in general) and a proprietary alternative (to allow for closed commercial adoption, and therefore compensation to the originators.) Unfortunately, a large and loud minority of GPL addicts scream when someone tries to veer from the hard-line "no closed source" coding. You can't dictate good behavior. When you try, you ensure bad (and very vindictive) behavior.
I agree with the basic premise, except for the Linux part. Apple has clearly taken the lead in this. The open path for migration for a proprietery OS vendor is through the BSD licensing. It allows for you to close whatever portion of your code changes you see fit. This is why Apple chose the Mach kernel for the base of OS/X. Converting to a standard UNIX-based operating system will help the customer more than anything else they could do.
Microsoft has never been strong on solid, stable, and secure kernel development. A BSD base would be a good next step for them. They could begin there and port the look-n-feel of their Vista. They could even continue using their beloved C:\, D:\ file system nomenclature on top of the native "everything is a directory off of root (/)" structure. They would then have to migrate off of NTFS, which should have been gone a while back. There are several, even GPL-released, file systems that they could negotiate a closed license from some of the IP owners or even use as open (most are inherently securable anyway, even open.) Who known, Microsoft may be the ones to finally break through the adoption barrier of adding ACLs to the UNIX FS as the required default.
I'm no Microsoft fanboy. I've been in this industry since they began and so... do not trust them... at all... They have, however, been producing an incredible tool chain for development in the Visual Studio/C#/SQL Server combination that I have enjoyed as much as the original dBase III/IV before Ashton Tate bit the dust. Granted SQL Server was obtained by questionable trade practices from Sybase, but they have not wrecked it like some of their other partner-then-stab acquisitions. Also, the .Net framework scratches the itch that Java just never reached. If I had a Visual Studio/C#/.Net tool chain for OS/X and Linux/Unix I would be very happy.
With new leadership, it is possible that they are trying to play both smart AND nice. I will, however, be much more comfortable when Balmer sees fit to retire as well.
I am hopeful of these new peace offerings to the development community (notice that I didn't say Linux community...) It would be beneficial for both Microsoft's longevity as well as overall quality of the software industry. Understand, however, that if they string this out and then plunge in the knife like before, Microsoft won't last very long. A dog can only bite the hand that feeds it for so long before you have put it down.
If it were being translated into actual motion (ie robotic prosthetics), instead of left-arrow right-arrow, that would make sense. When you are "typing" you don't want to accidentally swat your neighbor. You are wanting to move something that does not necessarily correspond with body movement.
If this technology gains enough maturity, you should be able to think in modes that correspond to prosthetics, automobiles, earth moving equipment, airplanes, etc... Each mode could be distinct. A left for one mode may mean a slightly different thing as a left for another. So would "lift off and hover 10 feet up"... "now accelerate to sub-light speed..."
This sort of control, if achieved, could bring about novice control systems for complex machinery such as exoskeletons, airplanes, boats, plutonium handlers, etc...
yeehaw... sign me up!
My recommendation is this. A 200 PC shop can (and should) support a full time IT administrator. If you can work the standards at the two shops (where possible) to a common management methodology (standards and such). You can get away with 1.5 for both. With this in mind, I would do a search for a high-end guy, and be ready to pay him. If you don't go cheap, you can more easily pick up some quality talent. Look for someone who knows how to interview the client and build a "strategic direction" for their IT that fully supports their business plans.
There are many things that can streamline support (whether outsourced or in-house). These all need to be analized and recommendations made to the client for future changes and purchases.
One is looking at thin clients using Terminal Services (assuming a Windows shop). This can cut out a huge amount of support headaches.
Another is simplification of the app set. This is, basically, reviewing the various needs of the org, the installed app base, and working to reduce apps with duplicate functionality.
Another option is to look for good enterprise open source apps that can be used to fullfill needs while not overrunning a budget. For instance Compiere is an excelent OSS ERP/CRM app (Enterprise Resource Planning/Customer Relationship Management, basically HR & Sales). You will have to, at present, invest in an Oracle license and optional support contracts, but it is well worth the costs, being cheaper than all other High-end ERP/CRM bunbdles out there. Also, if they don't need the high-end features of MS Office, see if they can use OpenOffice.org as a standard. OSS, however, is not always the way to go. This needs to be looked at carefully for each organization and application in question.
Another thing to consider is a strict (at least as strict as you can get) hardware standard. having fewer target platforms reduces the support nightmares. The only places where the standard should be compromized is on montors and printers, or, possibly CAD tools (pucks, styluses, etc.), if it is an engineering/architectiral firm.
Also, along with the standard build is a hardware refresh policy. Every three years or so, a PC or printer should be replaced. You can spread this out on a monthly basis where you have a sane amount of upgrades to deal with each month. Don't change your target hardware standard more than once a year, though. This limits the installed base to 3 base platforms.
Antivirus and firewalling are absolutely essential. Setup a central antivirus management console on one of the servers and push out updates from there. This reduces the external traffic. For firewall, I recommend Astaro. It has a comparable feature set to a Checkpoint firewall with a fraction of the cost.
These are just some of the options to cosider to bring a site from chaos to sanity. A good admin will bring these skills and experience with him. Feed him well and he'll keep your clients running smoothly.
Whether you agree with his position or not, he is doing his job as described. The president has a responsibility to stand true to the values that he represented when elected, or present a good reason to changes that opinion. If someone more liberal gets elected, we would expect him to follow those more liberal beliefs, which is his responsibility. I didn't much like Clinton, but I respected his authority to make the decisions that he did (at least when they were legal). Same with Bush. I would like to see some harsher checks from congress or the courts regarding Bush's views of civil liberties, which may border on the illegal.
In regards to the ES funding, he is simply allowing those who consider ending a conceived life as murder to opt out of having to pay for it. You may not agree to their views, or his, but you have to respect their rights to voice their opinion and not be made to participate in what they consider murder.
Sure, trust Dr. Mengela. He's such a good chap. Where would we be without him?
Also, remember that embrionic stem cell research is perfectly legal in all 50 states. It's just not funded by the federal government because enough of the population disagrees with the use of federal funds for that purpose. That is democracy at its best. Freedom to explore the possibilities (within reason) without forcing everyone to participate unwillingly.
Mod me down, if you must, but someone has to speak the truth against these monsterous ideas.
An Illinois court will never have jurisdiction over a Canadian company, operating completely in Canada. The fact that many US companies/citizens use a Canadian product of their own free will does not EVER subject that company to US jurisdiction. If, however, a criminal act was carried out that effect a US company/citizen, an Illinois court can go through the proper channels to request the Canadian government to extradite the alledged criminals for trial within the US.
This judge is so far out of line that he should brought up before an impeachment hearing. He's dabling in international law in a way that can have severe consequences.
On this particular project, I'll have to disagree. Mr. Reiser is not just a coder/developer. He has built the ReiserFS/4 code from the ground up based on advanced mathematical theory, with full test case scenarios, and thorough benchmarking. He is a high-end designer/engineer and chief architect and visionary of a very complex project. This project represents the cornerstone of, arguably, the most critical piece in any successful OS, the file system. His is not the only solution, but it is an incredibly good one. Though it can, and will, be picked up if the worst comes to pass, it will be hard to replace his vision and tenacity to excelence. These are not minor consequences in regards to the Reiser4 project.
At stake is the Reiser4 Code, which has not yet been included into the kernel due to what appears to be mostly political bickering over source code formatting standards. It is still in a mostly beta state, but has potential for much better performance. This, also, is GLPed, so it is possible for this to be picked up by a major player (SuSe, RedHat, etc.) or advanced team. Being that it is not yet widely relied upon, it is not much of an issue with the status quo.
I hope that at least the first one will come about.
Very... Being that there is no body yet, I'm hoping that she isn't dead and your tasteless comment proves, in a way, true.
I would say, get both. If you need windows, run a few terminal servers for the few apps that HAVE TO HAVE Windows!
The whole idea of attrition upgrade is untenable when a MS OS or Office upgrade is involved. The two overridding issues are compatibility and supportability.
Compatibility issues arise due to such things as new features of office version not being usable by older versions, thus, eventually forcing an accross the board updrage. Also, there are often changes in the way that the new OS networking integrates with the existing infrastructure. This can cause hard to find issues cropping into the network. These types of problems can slowly build up, and eventually force an accross the board upgrade. Also, simple changes in the user interface create innumerable support headaches when there are more than one OS/Office version floating around on the floor.
For large organizations, the only tenable solution is the Enterprise or Site licensing clauses that allow them to continue putting out PCs with the existing standard (such as XP & Office 2003) until they are forced to upgrade. In this way, they can slowly (with attrition) buy hardware that will support the new software without yet deploying the new software. When all the support pieces are in place and enough of the hardware has been replaced, then a large project can be launched to upgrade all the users to the new software, replacing the remaining low-end hardware at the same time. This also entails internal and commercial application upgrades to take care of compatibility issues. With a well thought out plan in place and no hitches in rollout (which always occur) the low end price per PC might be attained.
Smaller organizations do not have the leverage (or deep enough pockets) for the site licensing. This forces them to go with a mixed environment as they buy new or replacement PCs. For a while, such changes can work, until the level of pain forces them to do more aggressive upgrades. Since they don't have the ability to do things on a mass scale to reduce per PC costs (upgrade and rollout labor, hardware costs, and licensing), they are forced into the eventual high end cost, as noted in the article.
In reality, the quoted costs for upgrade have been fairly consistent over the years. These issues have existed since the beginning of this industry. Although hardware costs have generally decreased, software has gone up to fill in the gap.
What never ceases to amaze me is the fact that these figures still suprise people. This is very, very old news.
As an aside, if I were given carte blanche with the IT direction (and budget) of a large corporation, I would use the upgrade budget to:
No, I'm not ignorant of the costs. It will initially be a larger cost than the upgrade to Vista, without question. Long term, however, support and upgrade costs become much lower. I would rather spend a bit more now to save a large amount over the long term. Strategically, it makes for a more agile IT department that has the ability, because of its investment in good programmers, instead of commercial software, to adjust quickly to new needs or challenges.
There will always be a need for commercial services (spam black listing, virus definition updates, specialty programming, etc.). The OS and, for the most part, office productivity and databases, however, have become simple commodities, and should be treated as so. High-end databases, such as Oracle will still be needed, at least for now, as
good luck...
It will take some engineering, but it is not impossible.
Also, adding a little PV, wind, or other to the mix wouldn't hurt things any.
I'm interested in the responses here because I've been looking for something good under Linux as well. So far, the comments don't look promising.
This is also correct.
This would not be correct. If a guy in a lab coat CAN take cells from inside my body and grow a new person, then he just figured out how to instantiate a living human. That human still has his own life, which STILL cannot be defined properly by science. He becomes a distinct being with rights and value.
The ethical/religious issues with cloning center around the following:
Sometimes the path of knowledge can be the path of cruelty. Use the Nazi medical "programs" on the Jews as an example of the thirst for knowledge gone awry. If the learning process involves cruel conditions for human life, we should look for other paths to solve our problems, such as the one mentioned in TFA. All-in-all Adult stem cell research is far more advanced AND SUCCESSFULL than embrionic stem cell research. The vast majority of results from embrionic research involves horrible failure and side effects (cancer, for instance).
Our objections to embrionic research (including cloning) are actually very similar to the far left animal rights activists except that our focus is on human life, not animals. To sum up a few of my favorite comparisons on left vs. right political/moral stances on things (from a semi-right-winger's perspective), consider the following:
To sum it up (again from the right-winger's perspective) we see the left (in general) valueing animal life and hardened criminals as more important than the innocent. This is, of course, not the entire picture, as there are right-wing wackos who DO follow the stereotypes (though they are few in number) and most left-wingers are much more pragmatic that the typical left-wing stereotypes. As a population, we are all much closer to center and share more common views than the politicos want you to know. in general, it is more about who wants control than what we beleive. The right has leaders who have said "this is the only way to reach our goals" and the left leaders have done the same. We generally have the same goals, just different methods to get there. If we could stop trying to wrest control from each other, we could come to a concensus and get things done!
Although it may be cost prohibitive, the concepts used when cooling a computer through liquid emersion may do well in this sort of environment. If the expelled heat of the computers is not enough to keep the liquid up to optimal temperature, you can conserve some energy by utilizing the excess heat from the refrigerant system. This method can also be used to raise the "PC-tank" environment up to optimal for a "cold boot" (sorry, could't resist.) The expelled heat of the computers will add to the load of the refrigeration system as a whole and needs to be calculated into the whole power efficiency equation.
Good luck.
If the former programmers were "macro happy" it is very difficult to decode, but with time, a lot of paper to map it out, and even more patients, you can get it done.
Good luck with your project. If you need any help, reply to this message and we can talk.
Randy