(I originally wrote this yesterday in a comment to the article "Mad has hell, switching to Mac", but it's even more topical here so I'll repost:)
> He doesn't want to bother with packaging, experimental drivers, > non-ability to sleep, and other issues that come with Linux (especially > on laptops). Plus, Macs can run a lot of Officially Supported > Microsoft software that the industry feels it needs in order to be compatible.
Yup, that just about sums up my experience too. My company really tried our best to standardize on Linux, but since most employees need laptops we had to give up and buy Macs instead.
We put a lot of work into getting drivers for the laptops and making stuff work right, but in the end it just wasn't worth it. Stuff like ATI graphics adapters that either worked with dual screens, say for projector use, with the X.org driver or worked with accelerated 3D graphics with the ATI driver, but not both.
Or the lack of stable drivers for the Intel Pro WLAN 2200 Mini PCI WiFi cards which also had to be manually reinstalled after each kernel upgrade.
As you said, the non-ability to sleep was also a major issue.
This isn't really a problem with Linux, it's more a problem with non-open and proprietary hardware, hardware that changes constantly and comes in a pre-packaged form wich you can't influence (laptops come with everything soldered on the mainboard, you have to take or leave the whole package). We never had a problem with our whitebox dektop PCs, nor with our servers of course.
We didn't have much problems on the application side of things by the way. People adjusted quickly to OpenOffice and Thunderbird (for email) and of course loved Firefox, everything else we do we host on the web. The only grumble we had was the CEO who claimed there really wasn't a proper Linux replacement for Microsoft Project available anywhere, open or closed source.
In the end we came to the conclusion that the TCO for Linux on laptops was too high, but on desktops it was mosly a no-brainer. Had we been able to use desktops all over the firm we would have stayed an all-Linux shop for sure.
So why Mac laptops, why not Windows? That was a no-brainer as well. We already run Linux (and OpenBSD) on everything else in the company, Mac OS X is also *nix-based and based on open source projects so the skillset we have is applicable. But the clincher was security and TCO. Macs are by far the cheapest laptops to own and operate in a corporate environment, because they a) Just Work with the hardware and b) the OS is secure from the ground up.
Add to that the fact that Mac OS X plays nice with everyone else, especially in a *nix environment, and the fact that we can still run OpenOffice (NeoOffice/J), Thunderbird and Firefox and we're all set. We can even run Microsoft Office if we want.
This is a win-win situation, the users are happy because they have tools that work all the time and we IT guys are happy for the same reason.
The only downside is the fact that we now have to rely on only one supplier of laptops and have to pay their, frankly, inflated prices. In the end we decided that there is really nothing wrong with rewarding a supplier for making an excellent product, it's not their fault that the competition stinks. Anyway, it's not like we had a huge array of choices in the PC laptop marketplace either, once we started eliminating ATI graphics adapters, Intel WiFi chips and other problematic components from vendors who won't allow proper Linux drivers to be made.
The field of remaining, workable laptops was depressingly small, and the fact that we couldn't rely on any of the models being available for any amount of time was unacceptable.
Apple gets our money from now on.
(I'd like to add that if HP will commit to making laptops that will only use hardware that Just Works with Linux (any distro, we happen to use Fedora), we'll consider purchasing their laptops as well as Apple's.)
> He doesn't want to bother with packaging, experimental drivers, > non-ability to sleep, and other issues that come with Linux (especially > on laptops). Plus, Macs can run a lot of Officially Supported > Microsoft software that the industry feels it needs in order to be compatible.
Yup, that just about sums up my experience too. My company really tried our best to standardize on Linux, but since most employees need laptops we had to give up and buy Macs instead.
We put a lot of work into getting drivers for the laptops and making stuff work right, but in the end it just wasn't worth it. Stuff like ATI graphics adapters that either worked with dual screens, say for projector use, with the X.org driver or worked with accelerated 3D graphics with the ATI driver, but not both.
Or the lack of stable drivers for the Intel Pro WLAN 2200 Mini PCI WiFi cards which also had to be manually reinstalled after each kernel upgrade.
As you said, the non-ability to sleep was also a major issue.
This isn't really a problem with Linux, it's more a problem with non-open and proprietary hardware, hardware that changes constantly and comes in a pre-packaged form wich you can't influence (laptops come with everything soldered on the mainboard, you have to take or leave the whole package). We never had a problem with our whitebox dektop PCs, nor with our servers of course.
We didn't have much problems on the application side of things by the way. People adjusted quickly to OpenOffice and Thunderbird (for email) and of course loved Firefox, everything else we do we host on the web. The only grumble we had was the CEO who claimed there really wasn't a proper Linux replacement for Microsoft Project available anywhere, open or closed source.
In the end we came to the conclusion that the CTO for Linux on laptops was too high, but on desktops it was mosly a no-brainer. Had we been able to use desktops all over the firm we would have stayed an all-Linux shop for sure.
So why Mac laptops, why not Windows? That was a no-brainer as well. We already run Linux (and OpenBSD) on everything else in the company, Mac OS X is also *nix-based and based on open source projects so the skillset we have is applicable. But the clincher was security and CTO. Macs are by far the cheapest laptops to own and operate in a corporate environment, because they a) Just Work with the hardware and b) the OS is secure from the ground up.
Add to that the fact that Mac OS X plays nice with everyone else, especially in a *nix environment, and the fact that we can still run OpenOffice (NeoOffice/J), Thunderbird and Firefox and we're all set. We can even run Microsoft Office if we want.
This is a win-win situation, the users are happy because they have tools that work all the time and we IT guys are happy for the same reason.
The only downside is the fact that we now have to rely on only one supplier of laptops and have to pay their, frankly, inflated prices. In the end we decided that there is really nothing wrong with rewarding a supplier for making an excellent product, it's not their fault that the competition stinks. Anyway, it's not like we had a huge array of choices in the PC laptop marketplace either, once we started eliminating ATI graphics adapters, Intel WiFi chips and other problematic components from vendors who won't allow proper Linux drivers to be made.
The field of remaining, workable laptops was depressingly small, and the fact that we couldn't rely on any of the models being available for any amount of time was unacceptable.
> what kind of process would lead a legislature to introduce
Good question. I wrote an article about just that (yeah, shameless plug) on www.luni.net. It's in Norwegian, but here's the relevant bit: In short, it's about adapting to the EUCD (EU Copyright Directive), which is a result of intense pressure from the US to impose DMCA-like laws. Which in turn was created to protect the US music, movie and other "content" industries, as we all know.
But wait, there's more. Norway is not a member of the EU, only of the European Economic Area (EEA). Through the EEA-agreement Norway is bound to implement all EU directives, but has no influence over how they are drafted (yeah, stupid, tell me about it). In theory there is a way out however, Norway can veto any new EU directives which run counter to the nation's best interests. Does the current Norwegian government have the guts to use the right of veto in this case? Not a chance.
This means we're left with a piece of legislation drafted in Hollywood, legislation no one in Norway really wants, not even the government. They're just too weak to resist.
> They gonna jail everyone?
If they catch 'em in the act, sure. That's not very likely to happen though, the police were the first to go public and protest against this new law, they claim it's impossible to uphold and will make every teenager a) a criminal, b) lose any respect they may have had for the law and c) even less likely to vote and take part in the political process as they will see politicians as creatures from another dimension.
You know, as in, "hey, could you take a reading on the background radiation in your Universe?"
I guess this just goes to show that the only thing worse than incompetent or corrupt politicians is gutless politicians. Or wait, the only thing worse... is all three.
In the image showing Spirit's course there is a rock called "Lutefisk" (Sol 296, top right).
Lutefisk is a disgusting Norwegian dish, think of it as fish jell-o. You take some perfectly good pieces of dried fish (yuck) and soak them in lye (yes, really!) for 24 hours. Then you soak the fish in fresh water for 48 hours, before putting it in a pan and letting it simmer for about 20 minutes. Finally you wrap the fish in aluminium foil and bake in the oven at 200C for 30-40 minutes.
The result is a quivering mass of translucent, inedible fish that is served with potatoes, bacon, mashed peas and melted butter (or melted pork fat).
Now, what I want to know is, how did that disgusting dish of spoiled fish end up as the (informal) name of a rock on Mars?
RTFA, the spammers aren't in america, the zombied boxes they use to relay spam are.
Follow the money!
Who is it that's trying to sell you something? Who is asking for your money?
Unless you get very different spam from what I do, they are almost always American companies. "Mortgage refinancing", "Herbal Viagra", "Green Card Lottery", do any of these ring a bell?
Yeah, there are quite a few 419 scams and other phishing out there, and also some spam in cyrillic or asian character sets, but that's peanuts compared to all the "great offers only available in the lower 48" or whatever.
It just drives me nuts how America has been spamming the world for 10 years, but when the rest of us try to point that out, you Americans immediately cry foul and start blaming everybody else.
42% these days? Sounds about right. It used to be more before, but I guess the rest of the world is catching up.
This would be a good thing if it's accurate, that would mean that close to half of all spam would be under US jurisdiction, which means they can be sued and shut down in the US.
Sounds good in theory, but in reality the US anti-spam laws are pretty toothless. In fact, many other Western countries have much tougher laws.
Not that those tough laws are any help, since most spam originates in the US and is relayed and hosted in China.
Not really. Forget IPs, follow the money! Who is it that's trying to sell you something?
I get the odd Spam in cyrillic and chinese characters too, we all do, but the majority of all Spam I receive is from some scumbag US spammer or other.
"Only available in the continental US" my ass, why are they spamming a.no email address then? And what would I want a mortgage in a US bank for? Would I even qualify? Is that a Norwegian outfit spamming me about the US green card lottery? Not bloody likely.
No, Spam was invented in the US and remains a primarily American "industry". The only thing CAN-SPAM has done is outsource the actual hosting to China. Yay, another outsourcing success story!
I guess we know what this means, that for some people at least all the talk about using open source and open standards was just a play to squeeze Microsoft.
While fully realizing that this is Slashdot, and not the New York Times, I'd just like to share the response I got from the Public Editor at the NYT when I complained about their use of apostrophes in headlines like "NEW DVD'S":
Dear Graabein,
Thank you for your message.
I include The Times stylebook entry on this subject below.
Sincerely,
[Name withheld by me]
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
Also use the apostrophe for plurals formed from letters or numerals (p's and q's; size 7's; B-52's) and terms like PC's, TV's and VCR's. While many authorities prefer to omit the apostrophe in these cases, it is necessary for clarity in all-uppercase headlines. Therefore use it in other kinds of copy also, for consistency.
To which I replied:
I see. I guess I will just have to respectfully disagree with The New York Times stylebook then. I was going to write at length about why, but mercifully (for us all) I remembered this little gem by Dave Barry and decided to include it instead (reproduced here entirely without permission):
Dear Mister Language Person: What is the purpose of the apostrophe?
Answer: The apostrophe is used mainly in hand-lettered small business signs to alert the reader than an "S" is coming up at the end of a word, as in: WE DO NOT EXCEPT PERSONAL CHECK'S, or: NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ITEM'S.
Another important grammar concept to bear in mind when creating hand- lettered small-business signs is that you should put quotation marks around random words for decoration, as in "TRY" OUR HOT DOG'S, or even TRY "OUR" HOT DOG'S.
--Tips for Writer's
Note the use of all-uppercase and the impression conveyed.
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my email.
More involved answer: Only you can answer that for you and only I can answer that for me. No one can answer it for another person. Holiness, like beauty and truth, is entirely subjective.
The idea that someone should decide on behalf of someone else what is holy and what is not is deeply immoral.
As to your views on homosexuality: You've got it all wrong. Homosexuality is, deal.
Finally: Don't listen to me, don't listen to a priest, prophet, rabbi, imam or guru, don't even listen to your best friend. Think for yourself. If you believe in God then it follows you believe that God gave you a brain. Use it.
"I just don't like the idea of mixing the unreliability of PeeCees with the PBX."
The PC hw is as reliable as your're willing to make it, it's just a question of cost. Linux is stable, Asterisk is stable, mate them with proper hw and you have what amounts to a black box for all intents and purposes, except administration. Any IT person can manage an Asterisk PBX using standard Linux skills.
Here's the kicker though: Instead of spending top dollar on a super redundant brand name PC server you can just buy many regular PCs and have as many standby boxes as you like. The cost is still negligible compared to a proprietary PBX.
"I *LAUGH* everytime an email hits the asterisk-users list "HELP HELP NO CALLS ARE WORKING I DON'T KNOW WHATS WRONG!!@#""
Well sure, there is a learning curve and newbies will run into problems. At least those newbies are now empowered to learn about the system and eventually master it. Try that with a proprietary system.
You're stuck in the past, man. Proprietary PBX' are going the way of the mini-computer. Your post echoes exactly what IT managers and sysadmins who had invested in minis and superminis said when the PC revolution came around. I was there and I'm telling you the similarities to telephony today are uncanny.
"However, if you deploy VoIP in office, and if you lower the investment by using existing network - you can expect problem; because we've tried it and we got problems like "echo", conversation became half-duplex (one side cannot hear the other), or abnormal disconnect."
OK, but then I would argue that you were using inferior equipment to start with.
You really should try playing with Asterisk a bit, if nothing else then at home, just for kicks. Asterisk is impressively stable and resilient, but if you saturate (and I mean really saturate) the network you will experience dropouts and in some cases dropped calls. However, how often do you manage to fully saturate a LAN? I have never, ever, experienced problems on a LAN, only on ADSL connections that were being used for file downloads or other heavy traffic.
If you use the ulaw codec (no compression), each call needs about 90 Kbps in each direction. If you use the gsm codec (lossy, but easy on transcoding cpu) or the ilbc codec (not audibly lossy, but cpu-bound if transcoding) each call needs less than 20 Kbps in each direction. It follows that you can carry quite a few calls on a switched 100 Mbps LAN, even if the LAN is actively used (barring packet storms or other abnormal situations).
If you have problems with echo, then you have faulty, sub-standard or old equipment, period. All VoIP terminals (phones) have built-in echo cancellation, but the quality does vary.
The company I work for is spread out all over the world and we hold phone meetings using Asterisk servers connecting through IPsec tunnels over the public Internet every week. We've done this for over a year now and the system just works. We're upgrading to video phones now since Asterisk supports H.261 and H.263 video and video phone prices have dropped below 500 Euro. Video softphones are available for 50 Euro for Windows, free and Free for Linux. With a softphone you'll also need a webcam and headphones for another 30-50 Euro.
"network is infected by Nimda"
I don't mean to sound like a smartass, but if you had been using Linux more on servers and desktops, Nimda et al wouldn't have been such a problem for you. There's pressure to introduce Windows on laptops and desktops at our company as well, but all I have to do is mention "security" and "viruses" and the discussion is pretty much over.
"lower the investment by using existing network"
You're right, that is putting all your eggs in one basket. It works for some (most?), but is unacceptable for others. Do a cost-benefit analysis and do whatever makes sense in your situation. VoIP is not a silver bullet nor a one-size-fits-all deal.
Today's modern PBX is just another Linux server in the dataroom with Asterisk installed.
There's no special wiring involved anymore, the terminals (phones) are computers in their own right, connected to the enterprise IT network, speaking IP.
It's not an island, it's part of the modern IT infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
(I originally wrote this yesterday in a comment to the article "Mad has hell, switching to Mac", but it's even more topical here so I'll repost:)
> He doesn't want to bother with packaging, experimental drivers,
> non-ability to sleep, and other issues that come with Linux (especially
> on laptops). Plus, Macs can run a lot of Officially Supported
> Microsoft software that the industry feels it needs in order to be compatible.
Yup, that just about sums up my experience too. My company really tried our best to standardize on Linux, but since most employees need laptops we had to give up and buy Macs instead.
We put a lot of work into getting drivers for the laptops and making stuff work right, but in the end it just wasn't worth it. Stuff like ATI graphics adapters that either worked with dual screens, say for projector use, with the X.org driver or worked with accelerated 3D graphics with the ATI driver, but not both.
Or the lack of stable drivers for the Intel Pro WLAN 2200 Mini PCI WiFi cards which also had to be manually reinstalled after each kernel upgrade.
As you said, the non-ability to sleep was also a major issue.
This isn't really a problem with Linux, it's more a problem with non-open and proprietary hardware, hardware that changes constantly and comes in a pre-packaged form wich you can't influence (laptops come with everything soldered on the mainboard, you have to take or leave the whole package). We never had a problem with our whitebox dektop PCs, nor with our servers of course.
We didn't have much problems on the application side of things by the way. People adjusted quickly to OpenOffice and Thunderbird (for email) and of course loved Firefox, everything else we do we host on the web. The only grumble we had was the CEO who claimed there really wasn't a proper Linux replacement for Microsoft Project available anywhere, open or closed source.
In the end we came to the conclusion that the TCO for Linux on laptops was too high, but on desktops it was mosly a no-brainer. Had we been able to use desktops all over the firm we would have stayed an all-Linux shop for sure.
So why Mac laptops, why not Windows? That was a no-brainer as well. We already run Linux (and OpenBSD) on everything else in the company, Mac OS X is also *nix-based and based on open source projects so the skillset we have is applicable. But the clincher was security and TCO. Macs are by far the cheapest laptops to own and operate in a corporate environment, because they a) Just Work with the hardware and b) the OS is secure from the ground up.
Add to that the fact that Mac OS X plays nice with everyone else, especially in a *nix environment, and the fact that we can still run OpenOffice (NeoOffice/J), Thunderbird and Firefox and we're all set. We can even run Microsoft Office if we want.
This is a win-win situation, the users are happy because they have tools that work all the time and we IT guys are happy for the same reason.
The only downside is the fact that we now have to rely on only one supplier of laptops and have to pay their, frankly, inflated prices. In the end we decided that there is really nothing wrong with rewarding a supplier for making an excellent product, it's not their fault that the competition stinks. Anyway, it's not like we had a huge array of choices in the PC laptop marketplace either, once we started eliminating ATI graphics adapters, Intel WiFi chips and other problematic components from vendors who won't allow proper Linux drivers to be made.
The field of remaining, workable laptops was depressingly small, and the fact that we couldn't rely on any of the models being available for any amount of time was unacceptable.
Apple gets our money from now on.
(I'd like to add that if HP will commit to making laptops that will only use hardware that Just Works with Linux (any distro, we happen to use Fedora), we'll consider purchasing their laptops as well as Apple's.)
> He doesn't want to bother with packaging, experimental drivers,
> non-ability to sleep, and other issues that come with Linux (especially
> on laptops). Plus, Macs can run a lot of Officially Supported
> Microsoft software that the industry feels it needs in order to be compatible.
Yup, that just about sums up my experience too. My company really tried our best to standardize on Linux, but since most employees need laptops we had to give up and buy Macs instead.
We put a lot of work into getting drivers for the laptops and making stuff work right, but in the end it just wasn't worth it. Stuff like ATI graphics adapters that either worked with dual screens, say for projector use, with the X.org driver or worked with accelerated 3D graphics with the ATI driver, but not both.
Or the lack of stable drivers for the Intel Pro WLAN 2200 Mini PCI WiFi cards which also had to be manually reinstalled after each kernel upgrade.
As you said, the non-ability to sleep was also a major issue.
This isn't really a problem with Linux, it's more a problem with non-open and proprietary hardware, hardware that changes constantly and comes in a pre-packaged form wich you can't influence (laptops come with everything soldered on the mainboard, you have to take or leave the whole package). We never had a problem with our whitebox dektop PCs, nor with our servers of course.
We didn't have much problems on the application side of things by the way. People adjusted quickly to OpenOffice and Thunderbird (for email) and of course loved Firefox, everything else we do we host on the web. The only grumble we had was the CEO who claimed there really wasn't a proper Linux replacement for Microsoft Project available anywhere, open or closed source.
In the end we came to the conclusion that the CTO for Linux on laptops was too high, but on desktops it was mosly a no-brainer. Had we been able to use desktops all over the firm we would have stayed an all-Linux shop for sure.
So why Mac laptops, why not Windows? That was a no-brainer as well. We already run Linux (and OpenBSD) on everything else in the company, Mac OS X is also *nix-based and based on open source projects so the skillset we have is applicable. But the clincher was security and CTO. Macs are by far the cheapest laptops to own and operate in a corporate environment, because they a) Just Work with the hardware and b) the OS is secure from the ground up.
Add to that the fact that Mac OS X plays nice with everyone else, especially in a *nix environment, and the fact that we can still run OpenOffice (NeoOffice/J), Thunderbird and Firefox and we're all set. We can even run Microsoft Office if we want.
This is a win-win situation, the users are happy because they have tools that work all the time and we IT guys are happy for the same reason.
The only downside is the fact that we now have to rely on only one supplier of laptops and have to pay their, frankly, inflated prices. In the end we decided that there is really nothing wrong with rewarding a supplier for making an excellent product, it's not their fault that the competition stinks. Anyway, it's not like we had a huge array of choices in the PC laptop marketplace either, once we started eliminating ATI graphics adapters, Intel WiFi chips and other problematic components from vendors who won't allow proper Linux drivers to be made.
The field of remaining, workable laptops was depressingly small, and the fact that we couldn't rely on any of the models being available for any amount of time was unacceptable.
Apple gets our money from now on.
My next cell phone, like the one I use now, will be a Nokia.
When they support me/us, I support them.
OK, let me get this straight. So, basically, what you're saying here is that:
"80 GB ought to be enough for anybody"?
OK, sounds reasonable.
5.7 teraflops, that's just nuts. I mean, wow.
Or maybe it's just me getting old, I remember when we were impressed by a VAX 785 upgrade to our 780.
Actually, no. It's "Sir William" to us peons.
Theo, is that you?
Good question. I wrote an article about just that (yeah, shameless plug) on www.luni.net. It's in Norwegian, but here's the relevant bit: In short, it's about adapting to the EUCD (EU Copyright Directive), which is a result of intense pressure from the US to impose DMCA-like laws. Which in turn was created to protect the US music, movie and other "content" industries, as we all know.
But wait, there's more. Norway is not a member of the EU, only of the European Economic Area (EEA). Through the EEA-agreement Norway is bound to implement all EU directives, but has no influence over how they are drafted (yeah, stupid, tell me about it). In theory there is a way out however, Norway can veto any new EU directives which run counter to the nation's best interests. Does the current Norwegian government have the guts to use the right of veto in this case? Not a chance.
This means we're left with a piece of legislation drafted in Hollywood, legislation no one in Norway really wants, not even the government. They're just too weak to resist.
> They gonna jail everyone?
If they catch 'em in the act, sure. That's not very likely to happen though, the police were the first to go public and protest against this new law, they claim it's impossible to uphold and will make every teenager a) a criminal, b) lose any respect they may have had for the law and c) even less likely to vote and take part in the political process as they will see politicians as creatures from another dimension.
You know, as in, "hey, could you take a reading on the background radiation in your Universe?"
I guess this just goes to show that the only thing worse than incompetent or corrupt politicians is gutless politicians. Or wait, the only thing worse... is all three.
Hehe, excellent. Alternatively, you could try to eat the fish jell-o, like Clay Shirky did:
http://www.shirky.com/writings/lutefisk.html
Lutefisk is a disgusting Norwegian dish, think of it as fish jell-o. You take some perfectly good pieces of dried fish (yuck) and soak them in lye (yes, really!) for 24 hours. Then you soak the fish in fresh water for 48 hours, before putting it in a pan and letting it simmer for about 20 minutes. Finally you wrap the fish in aluminium foil and bake in the oven at 200C for 30-40 minutes.
The result is a quivering mass of translucent, inedible fish that is served with potatoes, bacon, mashed peas and melted butter (or melted pork fat).
Now, what I want to know is, how did that disgusting dish of spoiled fish end up as the (informal) name of a rock on Mars?
Follow the money!
Who is it that's trying to sell you something? Who is asking for your money?
Unless you get very different spam from what I do, they are almost always American companies. "Mortgage refinancing", "Herbal Viagra", "Green Card Lottery", do any of these ring a bell?
Yeah, there are quite a few 419 scams and other phishing out there, and also some spam in cyrillic or asian character sets, but that's peanuts compared to all the "great offers only available in the lower 48" or whatever.
It just drives me nuts how America has been spamming the world for 10 years, but when the rest of us try to point that out, you Americans immediately cry foul and start blaming everybody else.
42% these days? Sounds about right. It used to be more before, but I guess the rest of the world is catching up.
BTW, here's the list of the world's worst spammers. Notice a pattern?
Sounds good in theory, but in reality the US anti-spam laws are pretty toothless. In fact, many other Western countries have much tougher laws.
Not that those tough laws are any help, since most spam originates in the US and is relayed and hosted in China.
Not really. Forget IPs, follow the money! Who is it that's trying to sell you something?
I get the odd Spam in cyrillic and chinese characters too, we all do, but the majority of all Spam I receive is from some scumbag US spammer or other.
"Only available in the continental US" my ass, why are they spamming a .no email address then? And what would I want a mortgage in a US bank for? Would I even qualify? Is that a Norwegian outfit spamming me about the US green card lottery? Not bloody likely.
No, Spam was invented in the US and remains a primarily American "industry". The only thing CAN-SPAM has done is outsource the actual hosting to China. Yay, another outsourcing success story!
Sure, other countries are *relaying* spam to you, but where does it originate? I.e., who is it that's trying to sell you something?
Follow the money, then try telling me that most Spam comes from countries other than the US.
I guess we know what this means, that for some people at least all the talk about using open source and open standards was just a play to squeeze Microsoft.
And what's wrong with splitting infinitives, pray tell? If all you've got is the "not done in Latin" argument, please don't bother.
To which I replied:
I never heard back from the Public Editor.
Simple answer: Nothing is.
More involved answer: Only you can answer that for you and only I can answer that for me. No one can answer it for another person. Holiness, like beauty and truth, is entirely subjective.
The idea that someone should decide on behalf of someone else what is holy and what is not is deeply immoral.
As to your views on homosexuality: You've got it all wrong. Homosexuality is, deal.
Finally: Don't listen to me, don't listen to a priest, prophet, rabbi, imam or guru, don't even listen to your best friend. Think for yourself. If you believe in God then it follows you believe that God gave you a brain. Use it.
No, seriously.
Wouldn't have to be a big one, one of those small tactical jobs would do me nicely.
"These premised protected by a nuclear device" - has a nice ring to it, don't you think?
(and that's "nuh-culur" to you, buddy)
OTOH, I guess it's perfectly secure now, as it's crashed and not responding to requests.
Way to go, University of Washington!
Seriously. The only place I ever heard/read about XM Radio is here on /. and it's always assumed we all know what the fsck it is.
The PC hw is as reliable as your're willing to make it, it's just a question of cost. Linux is stable, Asterisk is stable, mate them with proper hw and you have what amounts to a black box for all intents and purposes, except administration. Any IT person can manage an Asterisk PBX using standard Linux skills.
Here's the kicker though: Instead of spending top dollar on a super redundant brand name PC server you can just buy many regular PCs and have as many standby boxes as you like. The cost is still negligible compared to a proprietary PBX.
"I *LAUGH* everytime an email hits the asterisk-users list "HELP HELP NO CALLS ARE WORKING I DON'T KNOW WHATS WRONG!!@#""
Well sure, there is a learning curve and newbies will run into problems. At least those newbies are now empowered to learn about the system and eventually master it. Try that with a proprietary system.
You're stuck in the past, man. Proprietary PBX' are going the way of the mini-computer. Your post echoes exactly what IT managers and sysadmins who had invested in minis and superminis said when the PC revolution came around. I was there and I'm telling you the similarities to telephony today are uncanny.
OK, but then I would argue that you were using inferior equipment to start with.
You really should try playing with Asterisk a bit, if nothing else then at home, just for kicks. Asterisk is impressively stable and resilient, but if you saturate (and I mean really saturate) the network you will experience dropouts and in some cases dropped calls. However, how often do you manage to fully saturate a LAN? I have never, ever, experienced problems on a LAN, only on ADSL connections that were being used for file downloads or other heavy traffic.
If you use the ulaw codec (no compression), each call needs about 90 Kbps in each direction. If you use the gsm codec (lossy, but easy on transcoding cpu) or the ilbc codec (not audibly lossy, but cpu-bound if transcoding) each call needs less than 20 Kbps in each direction. It follows that you can carry quite a few calls on a switched 100 Mbps LAN, even if the LAN is actively used (barring packet storms or other abnormal situations).
If you have problems with echo, then you have faulty, sub-standard or old equipment, period. All VoIP terminals (phones) have built-in echo cancellation, but the quality does vary.
The company I work for is spread out all over the world and we hold phone meetings using Asterisk servers connecting through IPsec tunnels over the public Internet every week. We've done this for over a year now and the system just works. We're upgrading to video phones now since Asterisk supports H.261 and H.263 video and video phone prices have dropped below 500 Euro. Video softphones are available for 50 Euro for Windows, free and Free for Linux. With a softphone you'll also need a webcam and headphones for another 30-50 Euro.
"network is infected by Nimda"
I don't mean to sound like a smartass, but if you had been using Linux more on servers and desktops, Nimda et al wouldn't have been such a problem for you. There's pressure to introduce Windows on laptops and desktops at our company as well, but all I have to do is mention "security" and "viruses" and the discussion is pretty much over.
"lower the investment by using existing network"
You're right, that is putting all your eggs in one basket. It works for some (most?), but is unacceptable for others. Do a cost-benefit analysis and do whatever makes sense in your situation. VoIP is not a silver bullet nor a one-size-fits-all deal.
There's no special wiring involved anymore, the terminals (phones) are computers in their own right, connected to the enterprise IT network, speaking IP.
It's not an island, it's part of the modern IT infrastructure.
So, MBCook, just how did you happen to come across this little gem then?