2199 posts • joined Monday 31st May 2010 16:59 GMT
If you want a mature platform that will enable you to efficiently and effectively distribute media of all kinds onto different platforms with a proven track record and strong existing user buy in...
Otherwise, go home.
Pffft. My (now six year old) projector is not even HD yet. It's an old 1024x768 that hasn't even chewed through it's first bulb. And I still have a second one to go!
I suppose I do have several "HD" monitors in that both my 17" laptops are 1920x1200, and I have a pair of 24" Samsung 244Ts...but I don't really think of them as "TVs." The "TV" is the projector I slapped onto the fileserver/HTPC. Strangely enough, I find 1024x768 perfectly okay, even if the screen size is "my wall."
A 1080p projector, if/when I get the money might be nice, but I just can't see it as a "must have."
Anyways, back to my book. My favourite authors are vomiting forth books again, and they're significantly better than the "content" available for video-based consumption of late...
It is your friend.
Why can't we all just get along?
And direct our hatred at Sony? Still haven't forgiven them for that whole rootkit thing. Or for squeezing MiniDisc to death by not letting anyone else play in their sandbox. Or for...
Anyways, my $0.02 about the whole topic is that it is rarely about people responding negatively to a corporation itself. The corporation is a catalyst for hating the most common stereotype of the that corporation's fanboys. How many Apple bashers really hate APPLE? I don't think many do. Some may disagree strongly with Steve Jobs' decisions, and indeed with the board of directors for letting him get away with it. On the whole though I think people are clued in enough to realise that Apple is thousands of employees, and hating the whole company is stupid.
People do, however, Tend to hate Apple FANBOYS. The interesting part is that the very specific fanboys that people love to hate most likely aren’t even the majority of Apple users. They are simply the most vocal. These evangelical fanboys not only defend Apple’s good name, but frequently go on the offensive against other companies. Seemingly this behaviour is as much a pre-emptive defence of Apple as anything; switch the topic to the misdeeds or failures of “the other guys” rather than allow focus to take place on the inadequacies of their chosen club.
This “going on the offensive” is, I think, what gets under a lot of people’s skin. They start to hate fanboys of a particular company, and this soon is transposed into hating that company itself.
Now of course this isn’t a one-size-fits-all analysis, but it is what I believe represents the majority of individuals who fit into “brand evangelisers” or “brand haters.” You could replace the word “Apple” in the above with any company (or even product) that attracts a hard-core cadre of evangelical believers.
I think the action/reaction is not between “my company/product” and “your company/product” but between “extremism + evangelism” and “people who have a more moderate view of life.” I know that I personally prefer to look at things as objectively as possible. Try to see the middle ground, understand all angles of a thing and compromise when and where necessary.
People who are stubborn, evangelical or extremist can get my hackles up fairly quickly. I can’t understand them. Why can’t they see both the good and bad in people, products and ideologies? Why can they never seem to seek a happy medium between their preferences and desires and the requirements of others?
Even though after decades of being on the internet, my skin should really be thicker, these people can and do get to me. So I can, and do, develop irrational prejudices against a corporation based on the actions of the individuals who evangelise that corporation or it’s products.
Apple is a great example. They make a fine operating system, and (some) of their equipment is not bad. (Overpriced, but not bad at all.) Despite this, I wouldn’t use it unless forced to, because I simply can’t shake the mental association between Apple and the terribly irritating [string of expletives] who won’t shut up about it. In the case of Apple, all the bit of their works that I personally find valuable also exist in other products, such as Solaris or Linux. Though they may not be quite so easy to use as Apple, I find myself far more willing to use Solaris or Linux than I would be willing to use Apple.
I am aware of this prejudice, and work carefully not to let it influence my professional business decisions. Apple, Linux, Solaris, Windows…they have their benefits and their flaws, and as stated above, I am a moderate.
Still, literally /decades/ of terrifyingly irritating smug self-centred narrow-minded elitist hipster Apple fanatics has poisoned me against personally using that company’s products on any personal level at all. Even though I recognise that those types of fanboys are probably only about 20% of the user base…they are my personal Kryptonite.
I am sure it will be easy for other commenters to read this comment and reply with something witty like “so just get over it, man! Apple’s great!” I have nothing I could say to that, so I won’t. I can’t get over it; decades of exposure have burned a deep dislike of these people (and by transference their chosen company) deep into my soul. Think post-traumatic stress syndrome, but instead of being caused by a war, it’s by over exposure to douchebags.
As useful as any program or style of management is, /nothing/ truly replaces good, well trained admins.
But...I can delegate GPO management to the little nublets. Let them tinker with the areas that can't cause TOO much trouble, and gradually let them play with more. A good admin fresh out of school should know a lot about the basics. I shouldn't have to explain what formatting a drive is, or what 255.255.255.224 means.
I however do not expect him to know that VI will behave completely differently in Ubuntu than it does in Red Hat. Not would I expect him to know the different places ClamAV can hide it's files, depending on if it is installed via RPM, DEB or TAR. (or if it is .95 or older.)
If I am managing entirely by script, I sure as heck would need to know all the different places the variants of ClamAV would hide it’s configs, and all the ins and outs of every version of everything that I used.
I agree GPOs aren’t perfect; gods know I’ve had enough problems with them, but they do seem to be a good way to keep someone gainfully employed doing useful work why they learn the ropes.
As to understaffing and outsourcing...sir, you have my condolances.
I've been running into these guys a lot lately. They don't seem to make much that others don't make as well...but they consistently come back as producing some of the best of breed stuff.
Abtinance is the key
Seeing as how I was apparently mean enough to get rejected previously, I'll express my opinion more quietly this time.
Anything that can be used defensively _will_ eventually be used offensively. It makes me worry.
Spot on. I have only the following to add:
A good sysadmin or head of IT will try their best to be impartial. They will ask themselves "do I really need this, is this simply buying shiny for the sake of shiny." If they are consistent with this, they will earn a reputation for not buying pointless tat, an important thing in any business.
By the same token, that sysadmin or head of IT needs to open minded enough to realise that no one in the world is capable of complete objectivity. Business managers will try to claw back money that you desperately need, while you yourself may well be sucked in to the vortex of seeking to buy more gear, or hire more staffs than is necessary.
I think that it is important to make judgments about IT budgets with more than one person involved. Preferably people with radically different points of view, but all of whom can be counted on to try their best to make the best judgment for the company, rather than simply seeking more jewels for their kingdom.
At the end of the day, as you said Pete 2, budgets come down to justifying costs. Just as important as centralised purchasing and the eternal game of budget chicken is earning a reputation for being honest and forthright about your requirements.
I have neither of these devices, but know several folks who do. I will attempt to answer the questions you have posed.
"Kindle users: what do you use your hardware keyboard for?"
Annotation. Great for things like recipe books, studying something simple like an MCP, or writers who are doing research by reading other works.
“Nook users: do you miss having a hardware keyboard? Is the secondary screen worth having?”
The colour screen makes changing pages easier than on the Kindle. It also makes jumping around between chapters or sections easier.
Notable item: nooks take forever to “turn the page.” Seemingly longer than the Kindle. Several nook users have sold theirs on Kijiji and bought a Kindle instead.
As this is second and third hand info, YMMV
The joy of American business.
It's awesome! Consolidation in any given sector into a small number of large companies with nearly unlimited resources means that you not only require huge start up capital to enter any established market, but that you can't be too innovative, or you'll get squished.
The joy of American business is that you can prevent competition and raise the barriers to entry and there are no regulators with enough of a spine to prevent it!
Oh, and then you have software patents. **** yeah!
"I don't agree with you so I must be an astroturfer eh?"
Have a Discovery Series Roomba.
Skippy is green, and noms cat hair all day long.
He's getting a little long in the tooth though, it's about time to retire him to lighter duty and get a 560 to replace him on the front lines.
A far better investment of a few hundred bucks than an iPad, that's for sure!
The people in power don't all have to be corrupt and power mad. "The people in power" in any modern government comprise literally thousands of individuals! It is completely unreasonable to believe that all politicians and civil servants are this far gone.
That said, the most charismatic individuals; those who lead groups and coalitions and generally influence all the others who are in power are almost universally those type of ambitious, power mad "grand vizier" types.
In a group of one hundred civil servants, if only one of them is the super-ambitious power hungry type, 90 of them follow the charismatic madman in a herd-like fashion, and 9 of them raise an alarm…
…those nine alarm raisers are irrelevant.
Group dynamics come into play even when talking about the leaders of our society, sir. Like it or not, those individuals who collectively form “the state” in every western country are not to be trusted. I may trust Bob, the random MP for my riding. I may trust the bulk of his staff, and maybe even several of the other MPs he works with on Important Committee Number 4. But one of the MPs on the Important Committee isn’t the greatest. He’s a little unstable, and maybe on the take. He’s also far more charismatic than the other members and willing to put in many, many hours lobbying the other members to bring them around to making a decision that isn’t in the best interests of regular people. Eventually he wins out, and we all suffer. Not because all the people on that committee were bad eggs, but because there weren’t powerful enough to stand up to the one who was.
What about the people who access services like cameras or databases when they are not authorised to? Or overreach their authorisation? It happens all the time.
Just because people are part of the organisation that makes up the state does mean they are trustworthy. I am far less inclined to trust the greedy and ambitious members of our society than I am the others. It is true that to become a member of the organisations that make up “the state” you have to both ambitious and capable, but ambition is very often married to greed. (It should be noted that greed and ambition are not always married with capability, and so there are certainly members of society that are not part of the state who share these qualities, however the signal-to-noise ratio seems to drown them out.)
As to reading Orwell’s works, I have. All of them. Several times. Perhaps my understanding of what he was trying to warn against is deeper than yours, as you seem to embrace a level of citizen surveillance that I think would he would severely disapprove of. You are correct in that “a few cameras on the hiway” does not herald 1984, however once the cameras are there it is only a small change in law to use them for something other than their intended purpose. Again; this has happened before.
The difference here is that you seem to trust in “the state” to have our best interests at heart, whereas I look at our history and see no such munificence. “The state” is made up of individuals. Individuals can be bought, and they are every single day. The right individual can have a disproportionate impact.
You can continue to worry about terrorists. That is your prerogative.
Personally, I believe that an ambitious and charismatic individual who is well placed and greedy enough to be bought can do more damage to our society than any terrorist could ever dream of. After all, terrorism is about sewing TERROR. It’s about making us afraid, and in doing so altering the behaviour patterns of entire societies. It is through instruments such as the very individuals that make up the state that the goals and aims of terrorists are met. Every time a liberty is removed, every time citizens are advised to be continually afraid of everything…“the state” is doing the job of the terrorists for them.
A short-sighted politician buying into fear or greed can do more damage with the stroke of a pen than a terrorist with a bomb strapped to him could possibly hope to. If you can’t understand this, and why we as citizens must continually resist the encroachment of the state, and the maintenance of the balance between liberty and security then there simply can never be an understanding reached between us.
Used properly, it can actually be affectionate. Commenttards is affectionate and not derogatory at all. When talking about "teh piratzeses" I have no problems with the usage of "freetards." Even if you are talking about people who stubbornly only use free (as in beer) software. Using freetard to talk about people who are advocates of, or staunchly only use “free as in beer” damned near anything seems perfectly acceptable and not necessarily derogatory to me.
I think the line gets a lot greyer when you start talking about "open source advocates or users" as freetards however. It betrays a marked lack of understanding about open source. First of all, open source isn't free. The GPL sure as hell isn’t free. The GPL is a viral licensing straightjacket that exacts its price in controlling derivative works. Other licenses are “free as in beer” for personal use, but not commercial. Some rare few are “free as in speech” and “free as in beer.”
As open source is not about being “free as in beer” but rather “free as in speech” I think that using the same term (freetards) for both groups of people is the mistake that gets everyone’s Irish up. While membership in the two groups does overlap, the crossover is generally less than most people believe.
The proper term usage should probably be:
“Free as in beer” advocates: freetards
“Free as in speech” advocates; opentards
That said, appending “tard” to the back of a word doesn’t really make the intent offensive. I am sure that there are some cerebrally less-capable individuals who would take offence to the entering of this term into the common vernacular in this way, and frankly they probably have a damned good point.
The fact remains that it has been used as a suffix widely and for a long enough time, not only on the internet, but in the real world in non-offensive contexts that it can’t always be taken as some form of attack.
This really depends on the Islamic country in question. Some are significantly more moderate than others. Considering Pakistan has agreed to impose Sharia law on certain parts of their country...
..Pakistan is not going to have a "London-like bar scene."
Mitigation isn't a bad thing. Changing the balance between liberty and security too far towards security and not caring about lost liberty is a terrible thing. I repeat: you will find NO PURCHASE HERE for your ideas, sir.
I, and many other Reg commenters, would rather live with a little insecurity in order to have liberty.
Also: you can deplore my view of the people in power all you want, but it's true. True, true true, and true again. If the past fifty years of history haven't taught you this lesson painfully and repeatedly, then there is no hope for us ever to find a common understanding.
I find your take on the world a little Orwellian, and terrifying. “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?” I have PLENTY to hide. I’m a normal, every day citizen. I have beliefs that I don’t need certain people to know about. I don’t need to deal with the fallout that comes from bigoted narrow-minded ****s. I engage in activities from time to time that I really don’t need those same people peering in on.
Maybe I’m sneaking out to cheat on my significant other. Maybe I’m illicitly collecting original 1970’s Dr. Pepper bottle caps. Maybe I’m drag racing down a 10 kilometre long stretch of open prairie where there are no turn offs and no animals or people.
Maybe I am putting up political posters that encourage people to think critically and vote out the current bunch of twats, or donning my Guy Fawkes mask before joining Anonymous in a Scientology protest.
Maybe I got SO DRUNK at the bar trying to work up the courage to ask out that cute redhead that I passed out in a puddle of my own sick on the way home, or maybe I took the time to doodle on a friend’s face who did so instead.
These are all things that in various societies are considered crimes, but that I believe any individual should be allowed to engage in. IF our whole society were monitored ALL THE TIME, then we might as well give up, and live under Sharia law. TO be monitored all the time is to control your behaviour all the time.
I don’t want to control my behaviour all the time. I want to think critically and not endanger others with my behaviour, but I believe there needs to be a large amount of flexibility in the application of these “grey area” laws. Your world has everyone acting like perfect little automatons in public, terrified constantly of stepping over the line, or so rigidly personally controlled they never make a mistake, never screw up, and most importantly NEVER HAVE FUN.
I don’t know about you sir, but I’m 18 with less than a decade’s experience.
I /require/ the ability to go out in the world and make some dumb mistake. I need to ***up, to have fun, get drunk, party hard and LIVE my life. I won’t have the opportunity to do so for long; eventually I will be older, with even more responsibilities than I have now, and frankly…the cool beautiful people won’t want to play with me because I’m old. So I will have, in my old age, only the memories of the times I DIDN’T WASTE in my life to live on.
If I am not endangering anyone else with my antics, then the man can eat 10,000 buckets of foul and expire.
If you want to be all proper and stiff upper lip all the time, you go right ahead. I’m going to go put some posters up, dress up like a statue and cause clucky old hens to freak out when they see me on CCTV.
Litteral minded much?
a) Help an old lady across the street: of course you ask first. She might be offended if you just help her across, being an individual who has a psychological need to do things herself. It's still called "not being a douche" if you help someone you see trying to cross the street who is having problems.
b) Driving with due care. If there is an open stretch of hiway with no turnoffs for kilometres down the way, it’s perfectly flat prairie with nothing in your way, then I personally don’t see a single thing wrong with taking a few kilometres to enjoy yourself. IN our province however, speed fines double when passing emergency workers or through construction zones for a reason. What might be morally okay to get away with on highway number backwoods when you can see forever down the road (say speeding or stunting,) is emphatically /not/ okay when you are in a position to hurt others.
c) Report crimes when you see them. An example would be “phoning in an impaired driver.” A major campaign in our province right now, and quite a successful one. If you see eomeone nick jewels from a store, CALL IT IN. If you see a couple of lowlifes beat a dude up then leave, CALL IT IN. (See if the dude is okay as well, and maybe get an ambulance.) As with anything else there’s BALANCE to think about here; don’t call in your neighbour because he has some donkey porn. That’s his bloody business, and noone else’s. Don’t call the cops because you don’t like the look of some chavs. DO call the cops if those chavs are sitting around comparing weapons in public. Critical thinking! It should be a required skill to be allowed to pass grade school.
d) Wear your hard hat in a construction zone ALONE would save more lives than anti-terrorism legislation. The number of people killed each year because they didn’t bother to wear a hardhat in a constriction zone. And yes, it’s a danger to others. I didn’t mention seat belts, but I WILL mention hard heats. You are NOT taking a risk with your own life. You are taking a risk with the lives of EVERYONE ON THAT PROJECT. Any construction worker will tell you that when on a job, you all are relying on eachother to keep an eye out for one another. If you get killed because you were a dumbass, then there the folks you were supposed to be keeping an eye on are now left without your services. If they don’t know you died due to excessive stupidity, and they are counting on you to see if “that giant wire is getting lose, and will snap out and bisect me,” then it might end very badly for them.
e) Call before you dig. I don’t know how it works where you live, but here in Alberta out power lines are largely underground. We actually have a reasonable number of deaths each year in this province from some idiot going through the mains with a backhoe. (Or even a shovel!) Simple things, you know. They save lives.
Anti-terrorism spending doesn’t.
You are wrong.
What history has shown unequivocally is that those who are the greediest are the greatest threat to the common good. The problem with placing your faith in the state is that those who rose to power in the state are those who craved this power. They are, to an individual, greedy. They will do anything they can not only to retain the power they have, but to perpetually increase it.
You argue that human nature means that “bad people walk among us.” I can’t and won’t argue that is wrong; but I will state that the worst offenders are most often those in power over the rest of us.
Everything in life is a risk; and we all of us have to accept that living in a “free” society bears with it the risk that we may be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We hedge this by employing police forces, intelligence services and military personnel to protect us against the worst threats. Still, there is a balance to be had between the liberties of individuals and the common good. No one side of that equation can ever be allowed to hold too much sway.
The only way to perfectly secure a computer is to disconnect any network cables from it, remove all possibility of physical access, and bury the thing in some magical hole where neither war nor natural disaster can harm it. (Which is impossible since eventually the sun will expand and destroy the Earth anyways.)
Similarly the only way to perfectly secure a society is to completely isolate every member of society one from the other, pad them in bubblewrap and prevent them from being exposed to germs, ideas, improper foods and every anything else. Unfortunately humans are an imperfect species and we will eventually succumb to various genetic defects or simply “old age.”
Just as a computer buried under 80,000 tonnes of cement in the worlds darkest bunker sealed from any human ever accessing it is completely and utterly pointless; so is a society in which there is no freedom, but perfect security.
I fear that you will not be able to convince the commenters of this forum that the society you seek is just, and they (and I) tend to believe the balance between liberty and security lies much further towards liberty than the world you describe.
I am find with having my family and my person left “at risk” to nebulous domestic terrorism. There are bigger fish to fry; more important places to spend the time and manpower that would have a more immediate effect on reducing the chances of my dying suddenly.
If every dollar put into domestic terrorism prevention, (and indeed invading the countries of brown people to steal their oil,) were put into helping the homeless of my city with their various substance abuse problems, My chances for survival would go up dramatically. You could build interchanges at some of the busy and fatality-accident-prone intersections in my province, saving dozens, maybe hundreds of lives a year. (“Terrorism prevention” has saved how many lives? Even one?)
Diverting funding from invading other countries to actually paying our military personnel properly would provide us with a standing army of competent, well trained, happy individuals whose services we can retain for over a decade each. These individuals can be deployed to help with disaster relief efforts both domestically and in other jurisdictions. When necessary, they could don a blue beret and make us proud by keeping the peace in the areas of the world that need it most. (Very different task from invasion.)
If the monies that were wasted on telephone interception of ordinary citizens, spy cameras, speed cameras, red light cameras, camera here, camera there, ID card this, database that, track, track , track were actually spent on hiring, training and retaining competent wetware, then we’d be far ahead of the game. Good polices and intelligence services, paid well, with proper oversight and no monetary reasons to turn corrupt can do wonders for a community.
Not only enforcement, but helping citizens in need out, doing active crime prevention via education, training and awareness efforts as well . We don’t need to know what Joe and Jane normal are doing all the damned time in order to “prevent the crimeses!!!!”
We need to work every day with regular people to make them more alert of their environment, the people around them, responsible for their own actions, and most importantly putting caring, responsive figures of authority in easily (and rapidly) acceptable places for when something goes wrong.
You can’t predict Bad Things, and you can’t fully prevent them However, a society that cares about it’s individual members, as well as the good of the whole can work together to raise the alarm when Bad Things do happen. If you haven’t wasted your budget on stupid pointless cameras, you can get some boots on the ground and on scene quickly.
When people realise that they *will* eventually be caught, because there is enough manpower to never give up, then the only crimes left are crimes of passion, or extremist (usually suicidal) belief. Neither of which anyone will /ever/ be able to prevent.
Precrime is impossible; so do your bit to make the world a better place instead. Help an old lady across the street. Don’t speed through construction zones or anywhere else you are likely to kill someone. Report crimes when you see them; even if it’s “just” an impaired driver. Don’t let your buddies drive drunk, and sure as hell don’t be that dumb yourself. Wear your hard hat in a construction zone, call before you dig, and don’t get between a sysadmin and his coffee.
If even “most” of our society paid attention to the suggestions in the previous paragraph, it would save more lives in a year than “anti-terrorism” spending has saved, well…
Stick around. El Reg seems to be expanding it's author base. While I have my problems with the opinions expressed by many of them, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many news publications with a more diverse set of opinions on virtually any topic.
It's impossible to please everyone. There seem to be to responses to this truth, the first to pick a camp and please only them. (Daily mail, Fox news, etc.) The second seems to be to displease everyone equally. For all the faults and flaws of El Reg and all the very human people who work there...
...I think displeasing everyone equally is the more honest approach to take. You may get an article (like this one) that angers one set of people (supporters of Stallman,) but a couple of days later a different author will write an article telling us how evil ACTA is, and why it needs to be buried in a shallow grave.
There are many complaints you can level at El Reg, but organisation bias is not one of them. Individual authors have biases. (Myself included; I’m human, how could I not have some biases about some things?) El Reg as a collective does not.
It just hangs around and takes the piss out of everyone all the time. Isn’t that better than the “fair and objective” style of shameless biased Fox-news style reporting almost every news organisation on the planet is guilty of?
That’s not rhetorical…after all the “I’m done with El Reg, GTFO” moaning in this thread I am legitimately curious. It would be nice to know if the things I value in a news organisation are considered “totally out to lunch” by others.
"If you as an individual could reasonably expect to be banged up as a result of ripping data out of the airwaves then any corporation should be just as liable."
That's the funniest thing I have read in a very long time. I thought the past few decades made these matters perfectly clear to everyone: corporations have more rights and freedoms than do ordinary citizens. Sad, but proven repeatedly to be true...
"And they'll receive whatever the Oompa Loompa feel they're entitled to receive."
Is "Oompa Loompa" the plural of "Oompa Loompa?" Should it not be either "Oompa Loompas" or "Oompa Loompae?"
Enquiring minds want to know!
Apple are dominant
The dominance is "the market for Apple gear." Apple have carved out a market called Apple, run by Apple, full only of Apple and Apple-approved-friends. It might actually be unprecedented in the history of business.
Collectors have been known to have a similar affection for a particular company or item. Look at the guys with the largest “Wizard of Oz memorabilia” collections, or “every single Barbie doll ever made.”
Apple’s unique success is in creating that level of attachment to new and upcoming products rather than some dusty bit of history. iPhones aren’t competing with cell phones, and Macs don’t compete with PCs.* The only thing an iPhone competes with is other Mac hardware. That money was going to an Apple product one way or another, the only question was “which one.”
So Apple is dominant; dominant in the market of Apple. The question truly is…should anyone care about this? They have invented their own market, one which no one even seems interested in duplicating. (Sony did try, during the 80s and 90s…but seems to have given up lately.) Apple isn’t selling gizmos or software…they’re selling an EXPERIENCE. They sell a culture, a sense of belonging. They sell fashion and fads, hip, cool, and their gear works just good enough to detract from the happy fluffy field.
Is that a bad thing though? People need a sense of belonging. They need to feel good about what they have bought; sometimes they even need a reason to feel smug. (Hey, if you are the downtrodden guy that gets picked on, or just got dumped, what-have-you...instant ego boost is worth real money.) The reason people call this a “cult” is that it really looks it from the outside. People are buying into the culture or experience…but is it that much different than people who play World of Warcraft? Or those who spend their time at the same karaoke bar every Friday? What about those who join a blowing league or take yoga?
The only difference between the WoW player going home to seek comfort in his online community and the Apple fanatic browsing Cupidtino from his iPad in the coffee shop is that the Apple fanatic actually gets a usable piece of elegantly designed, functional electronics equipment for his investment of money and time.
Apple’s market then is a monopoly on actually providing people something of value for taking advantage of their addictive need for social inclusion. (And perhaps more importantly, the need of those same people to EXCLUDE others.) To me, for all the many and myriad faults and complaints I could fire at Apple; abusing their “dominant position” is not one I could ever support.
*I realise that some people do carefully weight alternatives, and choose what they perceive to be “the best product,” and in this sense Apple does actually compete with others. I maintain that Apple supporters who perform this level of analysis before purchasing are small enough to be considered a rounding error.
Please do not believe that all of us at El Reg share the same opinions about, well...anything.
The opinions of the various authors are as diverse as those of the commenters, I assure you. To counterbalance the article here, I would point you at Michael Geist’s blog.
Well worth the time spend reading it, and he updates is quite regularly with new, relevant information.
Freedom fighting around the world.
"I am confused now. So when Uncle Sam sends in their troops to stir things up (or convinces the locals to start a civil war), then they are "freedom fighters" because their motivation is to change the government?"
Of course they are freedom fighters. Americans always fight for freedom. Big smiles and polished boots. Spreading truth, democracy and capitalism like God intended. Oh, you mean freedom fighter as in "the freedom of non Americans." Perhaps notsomuch. But if they clean up their acts, they’ll be Americans one day too! You just wait and see; once we bring democracy to them, they’ll be just like Americans!
Hey listen there sonny, have you seen the world? Well what if I told you that you could...
So how do you get past the "what if you are in a location with poor/no internet coverage" or "someone went through the local fibre with a cat" problems?
Or for that matter the part where by being in the "cloud," you don't control your own data?
Cloud computing has too many problems yet...trust being the biggest, but reliability of both the providers and the network infrastructure are a very close second. I don't know about you, but where I live internet connections aren't 100% stable. There are easily 10 or more multi-hour outages a year. (Big time money for a corporation can be lost in that timeframe.)
And honestly, I don't trust Google or any of their ilk as far as I can throw a multi billion dollar vertically integrated megacorporate monopoly.
To each thier own, however...
People are okay with the idea of "going over there to kill some people that are also over there." The instant the idea becomes "some people over there want to kill one of us people over here" the world starts to seem a little smaller.
Almost everyone in the western world has committed “crimes” punishable by some pretty terrible punishments according to strict Sharia law. I can say this without reservation, and frankly about 99.9%+ of the population of the western world because so very few of us understand the real differences between the two cultures. Anything from using Mohammed’s name in vain to “carnal relations” under about a squillion different contexts to looking at the wrong woman improperly are all pretty damning in their culture.
We like to think of them as simply crazy, or misguided, or any of a dozen different things that boil down to “their view on life is wrong and ours is right.” To them, we are beneath contempt; sinners of the worst sort and defilers not only of their God, but of everything they believe to be important. Oh, the average Muslim in a poor country probably doesn’t care two hoots about any Western country. But the even slightly better off folks; those with education and exposure to foreign media…it is from them that the fanatics are plucked.
As with out culture, it is also from these same affluent people that our leaders are chosen. In our case, we have leaders steeped in the cult of “me, me, me,” and thus our culture has moved towards the glorification of the self above all other interests. We have only been a “culture” for a few hundred years, and yet look how very deep that influence has become.
To contrast, there has been over a thousand years Muslim leaders who have felt their religion, and with it the strict control of behaviour is critically important. “Me, me ,me” isn’t what rose to the top in their society; “conform, conform, conform” is what did.
We can’t understand it. I’ve studied it for years, and taken quite a lot of time out to discuss the topic at length with academics, devout hard line Muslims, and others. I still can only barely wrap my mind around how truly different our cultures are.
So the idea that these people that we don’t understand, who believe in things we find scary are willing to work through the “proper channels” of our society to get what they want is ABSOLUTELY TERRIFYING to us. It means we have to look at the situation and say “we might not understand them AT ALL, but they obviously are beginning to understand us quite a lot.”
Since we are all of us guilty, it brings forth a primal fear: what if they come for me next?
It is perhaps unlikely, but that doesn’t stop people from being afraid, and what people fear, they lash out at.
"Would like to ask, what kind of stuff are you talking about that can't be paralised? In the real world I mean, I know the theoretical limits but I've rarely (probably never) butted up against them."
Well, talking strictly "real world" stuff, we run up against this with render engines a lot. You can render many different things at the same time, but you can only render one thing in one thread. If you are applying multiple filters to a frame or image, you have to wait until filter 1 is done before filter 2 is applied, because it needs to corrected image from filter 1. We hit this wall all the time, since the vast majority of our data requirements are rendering terabytes of images every month.
I also see many video decoders that can be at best PARTLY parallelized, but which still have to do the bulk of their work in a single thread. This leaves you really dependant on the speed of that primary core. There are other examples, (such as speech recognition, facial recognition sets and other biometrics processing that seem to require one large thread with a bunch of much smaller ones.)
“Hmm. I'd like to say well Duh, because there is never a replacement for common sense & knowing your subject. Anyone who thinks there is shouldn't be in a business. 'cept they are aren't they.”
The world moves ever faster towards replacing all wetware with hardware and software. No matter who you are, your job will eventually be done by some form of robot. Why should systems administration be immune. Just think of all the neat programs we use every day that once upon a time would have required a human being to do the work.
If you have the money for the software licenses, you can run an IT department on a shockingly low number of people. When you start talking managing a thousand or so servers, it becomes a real consideration, as the wetware overhead to do that manually starts to edge higher than the cost of the management software.
For SMEs, wetware is simply the cheaper option.
Small hole in all data governance plans
Users are allergic to digital hygiene. Unlike missing a shower, you won’t smell funny and your coworkers aren’t going to mock you. There’s no social incentive whatsoever to clean up after your digital self.
And thus only the rare neurotic ones ever bother.
Any data management exercise that doesn’t realise there will be zero actual buy in from day to day users is doomed to failure at the start.
Yes...and no. There will of course be a writeup of "why did trevor choose this server technology over that server technology." The issue is that this is a desktop managment blog. Not a server one. That said, I do have that article planned for September...
What kind of world do you live in? "Long term savings?" The setup you are describing would cost me more in a single year than I have budget for THE NEXT FIVE. Not my “Server budget” for the next five, but my entire IT budget. Desktops, switches, servers and licensing. I work for a small business; thus my blog is about what helps SMEs try to get the same quality of hardware and software as the big guys without having to spend more on IT than the annual company revenue.
It might be viable if you are a large corporation with over a thousand people, or a medium-sized municipality. For a company with 60 people, what you propose simply isn’t going to happen. It also needs to be mentioned that “4 hour response” isn’t remotely good enough. If something goes down, the VMs need to be moved and fired back up immediately. 4 hours downtime on the wrong day would see the difference between profit and loss that year. That means not only collapsing all your eggs into a small number of baskets; but having an extra super-expensive basket to boot.
What you do with really expensive hardware and software we do with wetware. Manually having someone yard the drives out of server 1, and put them into server 2 is a downtime of about 5 minutes while the backup boots. The servers themselves cost less than $2000, and software is free. In the worst case, where we have to move VMs the old fashioned way, we are down for a couple of hours while they stream across the network to their new home.
What we pay in extra wetware time to do this kind of maintenance is, (and I did the numbers) about a twentieth the cost of the licensing alone. Licensing would be cheaper if we had fewer servers, but then we need significantly more complicated and expensive servers. There is no escape from that game except refusing to play.
At the end of the day, we have a choice: get locked into an American vendor, and send our money into the back pocket of some rich guys we never met, or spend less than that amount to pay the salary of someone locally.
You say all the “problems” with virtualisation go away with the right software and hardware. Well, you’re not 100% right about that; I have played quite extensively with the niftier virtualisation software. It’s CLOSE…but it’s not there YET. Still, it’s far easier than doing it by hand, I agree.
The "problems" I am highlighting are that UNLESS you buy the ridiculous software, and get very complicated and expensive servers, these are real, honest-to-god issues. Did you read the article, sir? I am pretty darn sure that I mentioned that very blatantly.
Or are you just trolling? If you are, I give you +1 internets, because I bit.
"I do maintain that the goals that open source communities pursue (making software that does what they want) and commercial vendors pursue (making money) are quite different, and that assuming they're the same doesn't make for a meaningful comparison."
If we were having this debate ten years ago, I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. Times have changed however, and I feel your statement reflects a small minority of extant open source contributors. Open source software is about business now, just as closed source software is. I am sure there are the odd programmers out there who contribute a bit of code for the fluffy bunny cause. Perhaps they wrote something cool and they wanted the world to be able to share in it. (I’ve written a few of those myself.)
These are more and more occurring in the minority. Open source has become nothing more than another element in various business models. Like all of IT, regardless of the original intentions or philosophy, the religion was jettisoned and it is now about nothing more than business.
As to the community, be it proprietary or open source having failed; I maintain that they have. They have failed to see the requirement for a LOM network management application and create one.
Again; your assertion is that it is my duty as a systems administrator to get custom code done for anything I desire; a very programmer-centric view of the universe. I have a sysadmin-centric view of the universe: it is the duty of the programming community to have software for every conceivable need already available “on the shelf.” Preferably more than one option, so that competition can drive refinement of the applications and expansion of features.
You and I will probably never be able to agree on this, because we have different views of whose responsibility it is to recognise the need. As a sysadmin I say that it is the responsibility of entrepreneurs and developers to see a need, take the risks and write an application. This then gives them the intellectual property rights to the application, either to release it under a proprietary or open source license, and to recoup expenses via whatever business model they desire.
If the onus is on my to identify and then commissions these works, then the intellectual property belongs to me, as the individual who commissioned the work, and it would be lunacy to ever release that software into the wild. By commissioning it to meet the specific purposes of my business, it’s existence provides me with an advantage I have over my competitors. No business man is going to give away their edge.
Thus in the case of most businesses, if they follow your advice, they get the software they want, but that software is never released into the wild. Good for the company, (they get what they want,) good for the developers, (they are paid to develop it,) but bad for anyone else. The burden of risk here is on the individual business commissioning the work, and they would be the sole beneficiaries.
In my case, the developers take on the risk of funding the project based on the idea that they will be able to recoup expenses by selling their application. (Or support for their application, or what-have-you.) If the developers are good, and market savvy, it works out well for them. If not, they lose. If they write a good product, then all of their customers benefit, the developers benefit, everyone wins.
That this particular niche hasn’t been identified and exploited I continue to see as a failure. Maybe some companies have commissioned custom apps. For obvious reasons they never made it into the wild. Others have been bought up by the large OEMs. Lacking competition from third parties, the large OEMs can charge exorbitant rates for software that does what I am seeking. (Worse yet, they tie it specifically to their hardware and software stacks in an attempt at vertical integration.)
I am sorry the statement rubs you in the wrong way, sir…but my view on who “should” be assuming the risks, and who bears the responsibilities in this are based on the “rules” of the capitalist society I inhabit. (Not all that willingly, I might add. I am a socialist at heart, but paid to think like a capitalist as part of my job.)
In the meantime, I’ll just use Spiceworks.
I used to use Virtual Server 2005. I then moved to VMWare server, (both 1 and 2). I have tested or put into production Hyper-V, KVM, XEN, Virtualbox, VMware Server 3, 3.5 ESXi 3.5 and I currently run my entire network on ESXi 4.
(Admittedly, I have VMWare Server 2 on a few overpowered file server as super-emergency backup capacity, since it will handle the same virtual infrastructure version.)
As to "more reliable solution," ESXi 4 is FANTASTIC. I use "VHD" because "virtual hard drive" makes sense when you say it in English, and the acronym then decodes into something meaningful. What the merry nether fnord does VMDK decode into that normal people can understand?
As to the boat analogy, your version uses numbers and percentages. PHB’s eyes glaze over right about…