3480 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Re: Multi-tasking includes proof-reading?
According to dictionary.com your "nob" is either referring to my head (nonstandard to say the least,) something involving cribbage (wtf?) or you are calling me "a person of wealth or social importance." (I am neither, just by the by.)
I suspect instead you were attempting to call me a knob, which is "taboo (Brit) a slang word for penis." This is a far more context-appropriate method of mocking me for my article's word omission.
Please file this away for future reference. Cheers.
Re: Total Crap
Thank you for your comments. You'll notice that the article talked about Metro, and not Windows 8's desktop at all.
Your attempt to defend Metro by claiming that you can still use the desktop is quaint, but irrelevant. Your argument does not address the topic at hand and is nothing more than a sad attempt to justify a UI change that has seen a significant negative response. Furthermore, you leave out issues like "Metro screen splitting only goes 33/66," something that seriously impinges upon the ability to use large productivity apps at the same time as the desktop.
Additionally, it is not my job to publicise your concerns about Windows 8. Write your own damned articles, if you have your own beefs with the product. But don't you dare denigrate the concerns of others simply because you don't feel they apply to you.
I talked about the issues I, personally have with Metro. I talked about the issues my clients and users have with Metro. I talk about Metro, specifically because it is the future of Microsoft’s design, and Microsoft has very much so made it the favoured child.
So you can take your “the desktop is still there” and your “if you don’t like it, just stick with Windows 7” arguments and shove them. I've been over that territory many times times in this thread.
Your solution to what I call multitasking is to rely on the traditional desktop. It is a solution that isn't available in all versions of Windows 8. It is a solution that isn't relevant if the application you are trying to use is a large Metro app that requires more than 33% of your screen. And most damning of all, it is a solution that has every possibility of simply not being available forever.
So I’ll be very blunt with you here: if you believe any of the following:
1) Microsoft is a company that you can bet your business on for client OS continuity
2) The legacy desktop in “pinned” mode is the solution to my multitasking woes
Then just don’t bother reading any article by me regarding Windows 8. The man you want to be reading is Peter Bright at Ars Technica. Those are the beliefs he espouses with fervor. You will find my analysis far more cynical, and significantly less attached to the idea of blind faith.
If you want to convert me, derision and ad homs aren't going to do it. You need to prove to me that Microsoft have earned my trust. You are going to have to show not only that what is on the table now will do everything I need it to do, but that there is a firm commitment to preserving that capability for 5, 10, 15 and 20 year timeframes.
You need to show me that continuing to invest in the Microsoft ecosystem, developing applications for Windows and supporting developers who choose this proprietary route is a sound investment.
Because as it stands, right now, Metro does not allow me to do mutltiasking as I have described it in my article. The legacy desktop does, (though even that has been nerfed somewhat,) but having Metro apps and desktop apps coexist and and participate in a multi-viewable environment is broken to the point of “completely fucking useless.”
Worse, “the legacy desktop” can absolutely no longer be counted upon to exist past the (Hopefully brief) shelf life of Windows 8. We’re back to “trust” here. You obviously have it. I don’t.
No, I’ve heard the argument from the fanboys at this point: “why worry about something that hasn’t been announced? Microsoft haven’t said they are getting rid of the desktop, so that’s not a valid concern.” Bullshit. I still have systems running NT4 built into machines that are the size of a bus, cost over $1M and have been running for 15 years. I have similar machines with Windows 2000 and Windows 7.
I have a massive XP embedded estate that probably won’t be replaced until 2018. We have point of sales apps that are based on code that largely hasn’t changed in 20 years. There is industry specific software from companies that have gone out of business, or who maintain some 10 year old Frankenapp with 3 devs and have zero competition, thus zero reason to improve upon things.
Eventually, all of this will be replaced. With what? How long will whatever I replace it will be supported? If I invest in some application today that has a Windows desktop client software bit, will users 5, 10, 15 years form now be able to use that software and use it in a remotely reasonably and efficient fashion?
How well will it work in a world where an unknown number of other applications are Metro only? What will context switching be like? Multitasking? How does it all fit?
No, I will not wait for the final product. No, I will not wait for Microsoft to slowly reveal to me the roadmap for Windows 9 and 10 one goddmaned morsel at a time over the course of the next decade.
Microsoft have just engaged in a massive paradigm shift in how computers are used. On the one hand they are periodically trying to ease concerns about the future role of the desktop, and then in the very next sentence talk about how Metro – and very clearly only Metro – is the future.
You trust them if you want. You bet your business on them. You invest thousands of your personal dollars into their new OS, and apps to go on it.
I’m done. Metro doesn’t do what I need it to do. Metro/Desktop interaction is pants. Worst of all, Microsoft have basically told everyone who raises concerns about this to go to hell.
So, Metro is okay? Dragging the desktop around on life support is the solution? Microsoft can be trusted with my future?
Convince me, sir.
Re: Multi-tasking includes proof-reading?
Far more interested in why we seem to produce them with full conscious attention on the task at hand. Not to mention why our brains purposefully skim over the errors, reporting to the conscious mind "everything is a-okay" when it is in fact not.
It is an interesting and difficult concept for most people to grasp: what we perceive with our conscious mind is not in fact reality. Just because you see something does not mean it is there. Just because you don’t see something does not mean it isn’t there.
Our minds are heuristic processors that perform all sorts of different layers of filtration on raw input before presenting it to our conscious minds for consideration. Out vision alone is a great example: there are dozens of different layers of filtration required to provide us with what we perceive to be a single, homogenous, three dimension view of the world around us.
In reality, each eye is seeing a curved single-dimensional image with differing levels of resolution at the center to the edges, in addition to things like our blind spot. Many of us (myself included) actually see colour differently out of each eye. Furthermore, we don’t actually “see” (as in have enough photons from a given object strike our eye) everything that we “see.” A lot of what we “see” is in fact provided us by our memories of what an object “should” be.
Add to this that movement changes things. When something moves, some of these filters are actually bypassed to allow quicker access to the raw data by both our conscious minds and our brain stem. (So the endocrine system can make fight-or-flight decisions asynchronously to our relatively slow conscious decision making process.)
Our conscious minds are a high-level application running on top of a rather buggy kernel. Worse: the kernel is in love with Bayesian analysis, and the hardware sensors kind of suck. 10Mbit/sec for our shitty vision? And it requires ~2lbs of our brain dedicated to post-processing before it is even provided to applications for analysis?
Pffft. Back to the drawing board, random processes of evolution that resulted in the complex chemical interactions that allow me to bitch about things on the internets. Back to the drawing board!
Re: You're complicating it too much
And, oh wait...works like a hot damn on my Android-based transformer too.
Multi-view windowed multitasking: even Chromebooks can do it.
Worse: many desktop apps will be "Metro style," while still being full-bore desktop apps with Windowing and everything!
Users are going to be so confused...
Re: Sorry what?
Metro supports multiple monitors. The consumer preview does not do multimon correctly. However Microsoft have made some huge strides in multimonitor support in Windows 8. Both in Metro mode and the legacy desktop.
There are many valid complaints to level against Windows 8, but please read the provided link...Multimonitor support is no longer one of them.
[$application] is a Metro app.
For now. But for how long? Microsoft are pushing WinRT hard. Your argument presupposes trust and a continuation of "the way things are today." I don't think that's a good plan anymore. Microsoft have made it very clear through their actions that "the way things are today" is not remotely how they envision it being tomorrow.
Re: Not necessarily about multi-tasking
An interesting viewpoint! So then, are we to blame the application developers for not integrating everything into each application? Should Metro productivity apps have IM clients, e-mail and so forth built into each one?
I thought we liked the modularity of "one app per task" while letting the OS present us with multiple apps if we had multiple tasks. Something about cutting down on redundancy. Not to mention not having to enter your credentials for each e-mail/IM/Twitter/whatever account you have into every single application.
But I could be wrong.
Or are we back into the semantics debate? Where “well if I can do two things in a single metro app, and one thing in the 33% app, now I’m multi-tasking, even by your definition! So :P!”
Alternately, you could be on a totally different track.
Honestly curious as to your take, and your rationale. Please elucidate. Regardless of the approach, it is actually a fresh injection of argumentation into an otherwise stale topic, and I honestly welcome it. Thank you!
Actually, as much as I would like to blame such silly errors on multitasking, I was not multitasking when I did my final proof-read. I had in fact maximised the window and shooed the cat away so I could concentrate. But I still missed it. Embarrassing; doubly so in context.
It is however proof of nothing more than that we are capable of mistakes even when focused. While research agrees that multitasking does raise the error rate of our activities under certain circumstances, this particular error in writing only proves one thing: that I am in fact human after all.
Re: Multi-tasking includes proof-reading?
Well, that is rather embarrassing, now isn't it? Not only speaks to multitasking's issues (which I highlighted in the article,) but also the "mythical man month" concept. After all, three others read this through before it was handed to a sub-editor who didn't catch it either.
Humans! We have heuristic autocorrection built into our brains!
The older I get, the more I come to believe that these autocorrection sequences correct for such minor errors without out conscious attention. Similar perhaps to how dyslexic people learn to read without having to concentrate.
It’s a truly fascinating topic to me; one I thoroughly enjoy researching. Given the number of my family members and friends involved in neural research lately, maybe I’ll even get the chance at some answers.
For the moment however, yes. Facepalm indeed. And egg on my face. So on and so fourth. Cheers!
Re: You're making too much of this
Cinnamon. It's tasty.
"But Windows 8 still has the desktop, and also, you can just use Windows 7!"
At this point, it is no longer just about Windows 8, and those arguments just doesn't hold enough water. Trust has become an issue as well. Windows 8 - and Microsoft's reaction to critisism - makes it unwise to keep the faith.
Re: Has anyone actually emailed Ballmer...
Windows 8 isn't Ballmer's baby. Windows 8 belongs to Sinofsky.
Re: Background services are multitasking, now?
[Author deleted] at [publication deleted] is ardently convinced they are, yes. His argument during out latest back and forth on Twitter was that "if you are compiling your code in the background, and doing something else in the foreground, you are multitasking." Followed by telling me to grow up when I made the argument that - no - that is the computer multitasking. You are still doing one thing at a time.
Apparently this is a touchy subject.
You're holding it wrong.
Just buy a bigger house. Simple.
Sent from my Winphone
Re: Much as I really hate to defend Metro.......
Actually, I think live tiles are bloody brilliant. Believe it or not, I like a great many things about Metro, especially the early-phase design concept of "information at a glance."
The issue is simple: We need to be able to "pop out" Metro apps into Windows. And I would pay cash money to be able to make Metro Start my desktop background, or "Pin" it to a second monitor.
Microsoft has a great many truly unbelievable ideas attached to Metro. Honestly revolutionary stuff that I believe would make computing more productive and enjoyable. Their execution however is [expletive deleted] pants. It is really poorly thought through, poorly assembled into a working interface, and the result is something that is functionally unusable.
Worse to my mind is their attitude about the whole thing. Metro is bad, but how they are responding to valid criticisms about it is essentially the last straw for me.
It wouldn’t take much effort to take the excellent ideas and code they have in place right now and make something truly worthy of a flagship operating system. Instead, we get Windows 8. How unfortunate.
Couldn't agree more.
So much of a regular person's day job however...simply doesn't require 100% of their ability.
…or are you saying you need 100% of your ability to focus on that progress bar as a VM is moved from one server to another? Do you need to watch as your file manager reads and caches thumbnails for every single file in that folder of 80,000 JPEGs? Do you feel the burning requirement to devote 100% of your attention to reading an e-mail about a project three departments down that has only a 2% chance of ever affecting you in any way?
Perhaps you do. The question to me would be…why?
Re: Fedora is all very nice and all...
Also: Cinnamon package is under review for inclusion into FC17. Check bugzilla.
Seeing the opposite out here. Older people are in such high demand (due to the flood of under-40s,) that they command a stiff premium over the 20 and 30 somethings. Doesn't matter what your credentials are here, there is strict ageism in place.
Young folks are viewed as "reckless," "volatile," "lazy" and "too entitled." They complain about working 16 hours a day for $16/hr and keep asking for raises, better working conditions etc.
The old folks just ask for the high salaries up front, put up with far more miserable working conditions and don't come back pestering management every 6-18 months looking for more money.
‘course, all the companies around here are owned by folks 50-80, none of whom have any intention of retiring any time soon. They just don’t understand “these arrogant kids these days.” Want people they can relate to. Etc.
It's why I started my own consultancy. They're far happier to pay you by the hour some rediculous rate than they are to pay you a decent salary as a permie. Just bizzare.
Re: @Anonymous Coward - XP Anyone?
Windows 2000 still going strong amongst my clients. Several of them sport these large bits of machinery with some computer buried deep in the guts running Windows 2000.
Are you going to take apart a $500,000 printer the size of a car just so that Microsoft can feel good about your deploying the latest operating system? I choose not to.
Instead, I toss a little Atom box running CentOS with a pair of NICs in between it and the rest of the network. Serves as firewall, does IDP, IDS and traffic logging. Works like a hot damn...and Windows 2000 just sits there, doing its thing.
Microsoft's last great operating system. Still toughing it out. Keyboard, mouse, multitasking and all. Whatever happened to the days when computers were good?
Unity? Gnome 3? KDE4? Metro/WinRT?
Cinnamon. Problem solved.
For Debian base: http://linuxmint.com/
For RedHat base: http://linuxfordummies.org/installing-the-cinnamon-desktop-environment-in-fedora-16/
(Please also contribute to the Fedora bug here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 to help push the Fedora maintainers to include Cinnamon as a first class desktop environment in FC17!)
Re: Talk about betting the farm on it
Russians are awesome.
Is friesday today. CAN HAS BEER O'CLOCK. <3
Um...is there a browser cache issue on my end? the last three paragraphs read as follows to me:
As you can tell, we left Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) behind a long time ago. This is major infrastructure: in many cases more than all of an SME's currently deployed server estate.
A practicable alternative exists. The Microsoft Online Services Sign-In Assistant (MOS SIA) was made to help bridge the gap. While each of your users will have two sets of credentials (local corporate and cloud-based), with the MOS SIA, you only have to sign in once.
While not SSO, MOS SIA is a freely downloadable tool that is "close enough" in practice. While useful and convenient, Office 365 SSO in its current form just doesn't make sense for SMEs. ®
As to "articles on the Reg being aimed at enterprises," that actually hurts my feelings. I'm an SME admin myself. I spend roughly half my day screaming at large corporations all across the globe to keep SMEs in mind. I try very hard to write my articles with SMEs in mind...even when describing a technology that by and large targets enterprises exclusively.
Sorry it didn’t work out this time. :(
Large organisations can have dozens of Exchange servers. Branch office mail stores, edge servers, etc. Heck, a "proper" exchange deployment even with only one mail store has three servers in Exchange 2010! That's before you get into the UC stuff to tie in Lync, federation, etc...
Disk filling is done by Exchange, thanks to no more single instance store. :sadface.jpg:
Re: Parts standardization much older
Redhat is an ecosystem. It's more than just RHEL. Yes, the official RHEL has slow package adoption. That is because they must test EVERY PACKAGE to work with EVERY OTHER PACKAGE.
But there are others. Fedora is bleeding edge, if you like. It's still very much a part of the Red Hat ecosystem. There are also additional repositories such as "Extras" or RPMForge. (http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/RPMForge).
RHEL and derivatives are designed to be rock solid and stable. But this is open source; there are all sorts of ways to inject "newer" into that, if you are prepared to take the risk. Ways that can still use "yum install [package name]".
As Red Hat gets larger, they will have the ability to add more warm bodies to QA. Really, that's what is needed. More eyes testing things, and that requires an even larger company. But don't expect any company that's made its way to a billion dollars to give up on the thing that got it there:
Providing a rock solid, reliable, easy to use implementation of open source software.
And another thing...
...migrating exchange into Office 365 is "easy peasy."
Finding the damned documentation...that was hard.
Why not write up a...
The answer is simple: I haven't had to do them yet in the real world. I have been asked by a client to move Exchange --> Office 365. I spent a lot of time doing the research and writing up an internal document, it seemed like a quick-and-easy way to get a pair of sysadmin blog articles out with only some minor rewriting. Preferably sysadmin blog articles that might mean something to a reasonable chunk of my potential readers.
If and when I run across the need to document more things, I am sure they will find their way into these pages as well. (You can always go to http://www.egeek.ca and hire out my company to do whatever project you want. I am certain that if I have to do enough research/generate enough documentation to do that project, at least some aspect of it will end up rewritten in blog format here. Or, you know...ask me if I am willing to write an article on a given topic...)
In the meantime, you might like some of my previous articles:
SpamAssassin front-ending exchange: http://www.trevorpott.com/?p=275
Basic Linux bandwidth shaping: http://www.trevorpott.com/?p=308
I am working on documenting some of the tools I use with Google Apps (migration, maintenance, overcoming some of the missing features like shared contacts, etc.) I am sure that will eventually be at least one article.
Regarding the specific products you mentioned...the simple truth of the matter is that I haven't done a Zimbra migration in about 3 years. (I've done several "from scratches", but no migrations.) I haven't touched Scalix or Sogo in forever. I've never moved Exchange --> Postfix, though I probably set up a Postfix or Qmail server every week. (Virtualmin!)
As a general rule, I write an article when:
I have to do something new adn this creates documentation
I found something actually took some effort
Something interests me that I feel would interest my readers
As to being a shill...
There are only two vendors who have ever sent me demo gear to play with. Pano Logic and Intel. I’ve been a Pano fan for ages, so I never turn down the opportunity to play with their latest stuff. (I do have to send that back when I’m done.)
Intel once managed to get me a few 10GBe cards. This was in part so that I could do some tests for an article, but had much more to do with my attempts at the time to woo a customer looking at a 5000-node render farm deployment towards Intel’s gear and away from Brocade. (I was demoing Intel’s cards actually doing offload and not failing.)
In every other case, I have either had to buy the equipment myself, or (in some cases literally) beg local sysadmins for the chance to work with equipment they have on hand.
If you have a personal bias against Microsoft, fine. Have fun with that. But please don’t assume I am shilling for them. I abhor all megacorporates equally. With the sole exception of Intel – who once gave some previous-generation network cards to one of the marketing companies they retain to deal with resellers and the press, who in turn gave them to me – what have any of these companies ever done for me? (And frankly, I feel that is more on the PR company involved than Intel proper.)
I’m an SME sysadmin, man! I – and my entire customer base – don’t even exist to these companies!
Yes, The Register exists because of advertising dollars. Yes, some of those dollars do pay for my sysadmin blog. But my sysadmin blog receives zero direction as to content. Zip, zilch, zero. If it says “sysadmin blog” on the article, or it is in the sysadmin blog section…it is 100% the product of me, my two purring kitties (who insist on putting some the characters into the article by walking on the keyboard), the number 42 and the almighty coffee.
If you want me to write an article about a given topic…ask. I am not Dell or Microsoft. I am not some faceless megacorporate or untouchable journo who never engages with the readers. I’m just a guy, you know? I fix computers, I troll people on the internet and I write things on a blog.
If I have time to do the research, you’ll find I am usually willing to give it a try. I can’t guarantee that I’ll get around to it, but that’s only because I don’t have a “permanent” writing gig here on The Register. I get approximately one article a week, and I don’t know how many I have left.
If that still makes me a shill writing "advertisements", well…you’re even more paranoid than I am.
Re: One little problem
Oh, and just for the record, my gripe about poorly configured MTAs isn't a dig at default configs of these MTAs, it is a discussion of the actual implemented configs I see in the wild. Default configs can be what they want; some email admins make stupid choices resulting in the weirdest configurations...
Re: One little problem
So...your proposed solution to managing and maintaining an email infrastructure is to presume that everyone else manages and maintains their infrastructure properly?
Always presume that everyone else on the internet is a complete idiot. What you are describing is exactly how two properly configured email servers would communicate. I have rarely run across much in the way of properly configured MTAs.
Most MTAs I know will retry send every 5 minutes, up to a maximum of 5 attempts at which point they bounce. I need to design any infrastructure I run on my side such that it works well for people running things properly and in the advent that senders have email admins with brains made out of rocks.
That means close the ports on my side so that their MTA can retry or bounce as the local admin desires. It means configuring my MTA so that if you try to send me a 100MB email to a legitimate address and the server says no, you get a bounce explaining why. It means paying attention to my DNS settings and my TTLs so I know what should be happening, but bearing in mind the fact that DNS providers often have their own cache rules that don’t pay any attention whatsoever to TTL.
I can’t make other admins run servers properly. I can however try to run mine well, and rely on the tools at hand (including bounces!) to attempt to convey information to others about what is going on as they try to interact with my network.
Remember that "could not deliver, server didn't respond" boucnes aren't bounced by the MTA I control; they are bounced by the sending MTA. And gods only know who configured the sending MTA to do what, when, where and why.
Re: compared with Google's one-user-at-a-time migration
Re: Google's one-user-at-a-time migration...there are tools on Google Marketplace that atuomate this nicely.
And AD replication = rageface.
Re: One little problem
Most proper email admins configure thier servers so that messages rejected by spam filters do not produce bounces. They also configure the servers so that mail sent to non-extant users does not bounce. (Indeed, I have CentOS VMs front-ending my Exchange deployments to provide anti-spam via SpamAssassin, ClamAV, etc. that do LDAP lookups against the internal AD to determine if a user exists or not, so that isn't an excuse.)
But bounce messages ARE typically configured if there is an error sending to a legitimate user for any reason other than "nommed by the spam filter." I admit, this is a PITA to configure correctly in Sendmail, but it’s easy peasy in Postfix, Qmail or Exchange itself. Even in smarthost/front-ended spam filtering configurations.
You don't get backscatter in this configuration, but it does take some actual effort on behalf of the mail admin...
Now I actually have some resentment at that statement, sir. Do you have any idea how long it took me to wade through Microsoft's myriad documentation and figure out exactly what needed to be done for this stuff? MS is great at churning out whitepapers. Not so great at cutting them down into a single document and making them comprehensible.
After I had done the legwork and made the document for my own use internal to my company, I simply figured that it would be something that some of my readers could use as well. That way, when the time comes, they don’t have to go slogging through the incomprehensible mess that is Microsoft’s unsearchable, disorganised, chaotic mess of an online presence seeking this info.
Instead, I you now have all the links and a step-by-step. Might not mean much to you today, but when the call comes, you’ll remember you saw it on The Register. And El Reg’s Search actually works.
It's one way to do it, yes. However I prefer simply cutting over the DNS for the simple reason that in many cases the sysadmin doesn't have control over the firewall. (There is often a strict segregation between roles.) Indeed, in many cases the exchange admin doesn't have the rights on the system necessary to manage the local system's firewall!
So if you have total control over all the things, your way is better. If you don't (as is often the case when I am serving as contractor,) then the DNS cutover is more likely to work the first time.
I have successfully moved Exchange 2003, 2007 and 2010 to Google Apps. There are several excellent tools by a number of different providers available on the Google Marketplace.
Exchange 2003 (and outlook 2003!) have Outlook-over-HTTP capabilities. WHile not "Outlook anywhere," they "do the thing."
It uses RPC over HTTP. The information is available here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb124876%28EXCHG.65%29.aspx
Hope that helps!
Re: Whilst I would love to smile ...
I legitmately laughed out loud. Drew wierd looks.
Thank you. :)
Abort, WinRT, Fail _
Re: Media companies
So use IPv6 NAT? Everyone else seems to be...
Re: Media companies - Don't worry too much
The author wrote the article from a CentOS desktop. The author recalls writing the IPv6 "high preist" article. The author also objects to being called "the author." Not because it's particularly objectionable, but because it's early o'clock, and the author has his trollpants on.
Bite your tongue.
Re: Was anyone else...
Just hoping I win some replacement gear during some of those "attend out online training webinar and enter $impossibly_large_pool_of_other_nerds for a chance to win a new $midrange_item!"
In the meantime, I have 4 pano logic zero clients to test. They seem to like me and sent me demo gear of their latest widgetry. Should keep me occupied for a month or so. After that? Maybe I'll write more about Android. I have rather a lot of Android gear.
Change it up, I say. Write about new thing as they cross your desk. :)
But you are a few articles ahead of me here... ;)
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Did Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets using glowing KILL RAY
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked