Really? That's bit harsh. There has been actual research into this question, with the result that computer names that try to compress a lot of info (such as VM-W2KSV-MAIL-01 for Virtual Machine, Windows 2000 Server, 1st mail server) tend to be less memorable than names following a more campy theme -- "Frodo, Samwise, Smeagol", or "Yellowstone, Tahoe, Sierra").
I name all my servers "foo".
I disagree -- with VM's the admin can create a baseline OS configuration, apps, service packs, network config, etc. one time. Users can then run the VM in the VM Player regardless of their workstation config. This has advantages when the user wants to use his/her personal laptop, or work from home, etc. It's part of the administrators dream -- because the hardware is virtual, a 100% VM shop would always appear to be comprised of identical machines!
I would have to start playing Battlefield2 on my personal time, though...
Slashdot Mirror
I use virtual machines; very easy to schlep around if needed, very easy to launch/create a new one, etc. Linux vm's for anything needing scripting.
Really? That's bit harsh. There has been actual research into this question, with the result that computer names that try to compress a lot of info (such as VM-W2KSV-MAIL-01 for Virtual Machine, Windows 2000 Server, 1st mail server) tend to be less memorable than names following a more campy theme -- "Frodo, Samwise, Smeagol", or "Yellowstone, Tahoe, Sierra"). I name all my servers "foo".
I disagree -- with VM's the admin can create a baseline OS configuration, apps, service packs, network config, etc. one time. Users can then run the VM in the VM Player regardless of their workstation config. This has advantages when the user wants to use his/her personal laptop, or work from home, etc. It's part of the administrators dream -- because the hardware is virtual, a 100% VM shop would always appear to be comprised of identical machines! I would have to start playing Battlefield2 on my personal time, though...