Originally posted by: Terumo
All computer/database again.
The world is more than flat files and .sql.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your post...at least not in this context...
I'm not entirely sure I understand your post...at least not in this context...
Windows has it's own tools. And if they can't be found, there's some programmer who's written it for the public.
Somehow reading comprehension doesn't suit you, I mentioned nothing about tools, and everything about troubleshooting. If you're spending that much time TSing on Windows, either your hardware is no good, or you can't install it right (or go through too many unnecessary steps).
MS is clever.
So basically I have to chase around all over the net for such basic tools as tcpdump?
I haven't found any good replacements for tcpdump anyway, and that's just one tool of many.
Problems will show up, preparing for them is one thing, but there is no way to constantly avoid them, saying someone who runs into problems doesn't know how to setup systems only shows a great ignorance about the realities of system administration.
When they do show up, you wanna resolve them quickly and efficiently, which is what the troubleshooting tools are for.
Sometimes you don't know what they are, could be a hardware problem, network problem, etc etc, yet another good use of proper tools.
MS is clever.
People have wanted a decent command line for Windows for years, MS is finally going to give it to them.
Negativity begets negativity. If you claim if something doesn't exist you'll never find it. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
BTW, a quick web search found some very nice ones.
Now you're talking about system administration. If you can't avoid most of the problems on a network why are you a sysadmin? My relative who does that line of work, sets up the network and sits down and talks the workers and explains to them the dos and don'ts. That leaves him to do any upgrades and installs. Crap if you think Windows is bad, try maintaing a Novell network!!
Duh.
And could be tail chasing too. Often my relative has retrain the papered avengers in REAL networking techniques. They come from school trained in theory and how to handle a problem taking 100 steps. That's not practical in real life, where companies get more than cranky if their IT budget goes over -- and you don't want to lose a Fortune 500 client.
MS is clever.
I love their business stragedy. 
bhanson
Golden Member
- Jan 16, 2004
- 1,749
- 0
- 71
Someone mentioned notepad and dreamweaver a few pages back, try VIM, it's far better. (and free)
Also, I don't see how the "Microsoft is attacked more just because they're Microsoft" argument holds up. It almost seems as a justification for all of the bugs/holes/etc.
The reference to web hosting control panels really does not belong in this discussion. Those are designed for end users, not for systems administrators. Tasks on the CLI are faster than in a GUI. I don't see the point in a GUI for a server, with the exception of software targeted towards end users.
Also, I don't see how the "Microsoft is attacked more just because they're Microsoft" argument holds up. It almost seems as a justification for all of the bugs/holes/etc.
The reference to web hosting control panels really does not belong in this discussion. Those are designed for end users, not for systems administrators. Tasks on the CLI are faster than in a GUI. I don't see the point in a GUI for a server, with the exception of software targeted towards end users.
So you didn't give it a chance. I've been using Netscape for 10 years now, and have always though it, and then Mozilla, was much better. I've had to (and still) use IE at work for many years. Always hated IE's bookmarks (sorry, 'Favorites').
You mean GEnie?
Genie as it was Amiga friendly.
Damn shame Amiga bit the dust, as that platform could've whipped the MAC market.
[/quote]Yep, 'GEnie'. I had an Amiga. It wipped the IBMs at the time. My 'PC' buds would come over and be amazed and it.
I wouldn't trust a public computer. I've been in different states before and gotten "that call." It's not a lot of fun.
You got a job then to do, because your "chick" needs one. Besides, it's a good excuse to come over more.
Working on it.
And yes, if it isn't a Mac it'll be a Windows machine.Ladies today may not, but those I know were raised properly.
Matter of opinion.
Not the server environment -- at least none that hopes to survive long even in environmental cooled units . There is a difference between using an Intel and Supermicro board too, that doesn't count.
Are you saying a Supermicro board is good or bad? Mine have held up pretty well, but then again so has the cheap hardware in my possession.
I don't care much for IBM, SUN, Apple, Earthlink, or AOL. AT&T's alright in my book though. They haven't contributed enough to F/OSS, so screw'em. So no, it isn't favoritism (although I can name a product from almost all of them that I enjoy).
Still reaching. It's the same hype that was done when MS won the contract to power the computers for the US sub fleet. Every gliche made the *nix folks slobber (meanwhile they wish to forget their buglist and security patches -- I find auto updates a lot better, than WGET and d/ling a tar ball and installing it. Too much work to just make sysadmins look important).
I don't trust auto updates. Every update should be tested.
Besides, if a person has to do more than the basics they have to use Windows. It was like that long before *nix was anything but a new toy. Heck, even my 286 had MS-DOS and everything back them was IBM compatible (it's still operational. Have pics if you want to see a 1988 computer with 2k of memory and MS-DOS that still works - no Y2K scare there - even managed to cram Wordperfect 6.0 on it).
*nix was doing work when Gates was still in college.
286's don't interest me. They played a mean frogger, but beyond that I think they're just about useless. Give me old non-x86 hardware any day, it's practically a fetish.
You never did point out any open source + free security software for Windows. How about just free? And I mean stuff that wasn't ported to Windows as an after thought (snort).
An IDS or GOOD firewall would be fine (good like iptables or PacketFilter, not ZA or Kerio).
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
Coming from somebody posting on AT...
No, IE is not free. By that logic, Outlook is free, because it comes bundled with Office. They charge $90 for a OEM crippled XP. Part of that cost is IE, part is WMP--two things a lot of us don't want. IE is no more free than Opera is. In fact, less so.2. IE is free, MS doesn't charge you like Opera for it. It's part of what you get with Windows.
The trouble is that in so many cases now, Free is better. FF, 7zip, KDE (KDE could be worth it just for the ease of use of k3b), Gnome, PAN, OpenOffice.org...
Not only that, there are pay for options with value-added, offering a good blend.
[/quote]Er, wrong. NS went down the tubes because it sucked monkey balls compared to IE 4 in every single way. NS wanted to do things their way, and it turned out to be convoluted and buggy, taking years to rewrite from scratch after they open-sourced it. NS 3 had it over IE. NS 4 was crap. It had all the problems and then some of current IE when it came to displaying pages with the current standards, and wasn't stable worth a damn.
Aside from market share...what?
Proviafan: Safari and Konquerer should display pages exactly the same way.
The issue is that folks don't argue the real problems (which all OS face), but argue about the maker of the product. I try not to blame ATI for making hardware with crappy drivers (or refuse to update it), and it can be hard, but realize a company rarely is in business to lose business on crappy products. The issue with the TV Wonder card was a legit complaint as folks had little to no news about the issue. Even a campaign to get answers met a stone wall. MS will at least acknowledge a problem (and sometimes even name those who found a bug or fix), and will try to fix it. That wasn't a case with the TV Wonder issue, ATI refused and everyone who had that card lost their money.
There's a difference between a company's product with problems and it trying to fix it, than one that refuses to continue fixing a product they sell that's not very old (1 or 2 years tops).
With the hue and cry against MS, it's about the cost mostly, then bugs/problems. Cost is justified as a business has a right to charge what it can for a product, and often the bugs/problems are user related (like with any product). That's the moderation missing in the argument. To date the MS bashing is status quo related to human nature wanting to find an easy scapegoat, like blaming the dog for eating one's homework.
System administrators have to use them too. Task maybe faster on CLI, but the learning curve and the huge mistakes that can happen, make it not the model for use in the future (at least for the end market). Few sysadmins work on Fortune 500 machines, they admin a mom and pop server which rarely is amended other than changing the HTML. Like with buggy whips in the 20th century, they will be replaced by easier to use interfaces with safeguards for, yes, even grandma to use -- it has to be. The revolution of the internet did not occur until the graphical browser (Mosaic) was born. The revolution of the server administration will come with a easy and useable interface to run those end user servers.
MS revolutionized PC computing (maybe not on innovation but persistence), it may do the same in the server market.
The control has to come to the masses, not a certain group wanting to protect their turf. So, the argument is more like: MS controls the PC market and it's "bad" for doing so, but don't tread on our *nix market because us sysadmins rule it. The hypocrisy of the whole MS bashing convience is what is truly amazing, and sad.
You do not have the power in a graphical interface that you do on the CLI.
You can still screw everything up (see: any of the tech forums here).
Locut0s
Lifer
- Nov 28, 2001
- 22,205
- 43
- 91
Perhaps the reason is that you are so used to the way IE renders the page that you feel that that must be the way the W3C specs are written. The example you give with the table being centred in IE and not in Firefox is in fact displayed correctly in firefox and not correctly in IE. text-align: centre will align the text to the centre of whatever element the text is in, in the case of this code it's aligned with the centre of the table cell. From the W3C:
"A block of text is a stack of line boxes. In the case of 'left', 'right' and 'centre', this property specifies how the in line boxes within each line box align with respect to the line box's left and right sides; alignment is not with respect to the viewport.."
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/text.html#alignment-prop
As for your complaint about speed I've never met a FF user who harps on about FF's amazing speed over IE. If you look at official reviews you will find that FF is faster at rendering some pages than others but overall it breaks even.
You point out that fark.com looks like crap in firefox, I don't know what you are looking at but it renders EXACTLY the same in both IE and firefox.
About everything, since I'm disabled now (have a heart condition). Why else do you think I can post so much?
Next project is to mix astronomical observation (building a home observatory - telescope and electronics) with remote computing, for example. Meanwhile I dabble in web design/hosting/computer repair, political advocacy (medicine), and persue interests in forensic anthropology (researcher for another project).
And I wish I was 30 again.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
If Apache is working, then it's a user problem. How has little servers and HTML anything to do with it?
Gotta agree with n0c on this one. CLI is easy, and sure as hell beats the M$ wizards. Configuring applications is easier when you can read and edit a flat text file, and use a simple, quick command line tool or three to reload it and then test changes. Long live BASh.
'End user servers' is a contradiction, too, Terumo. Want to elaborate on what on earth you're talking about, there?
1. Yet.
2. Yes, but that's a tail chasing argument, because the same plagues CLI users who type the wrong switch (or worse d/l the wrong tar ball, and install a wrong or broken patch).
Have to think beyond the here and now, and in 10 years. There will be a revolution in the server sector to make system administration as easy as desktop computing has become. It takes an organization (a company most often) with the resources to do so. Either that'll come by another innovator, MS or Apple. Mostly likely MS, as it's expected to do it. It's not if MS will break into the server market wholesale, it's just when (same goes with Apple).
*nix is living the 1971 dream at the moment. 1981, and 1996, is coming up.
Originally posted by: Cerb
If it was working how could it be a problem, unless something wrong with it in the first place.
Secondly, the largest server market is those little servers. Be it the gamer with his HL or UT clan server, to the mom and pop business selling trinkets.
Flat files are a problem in itself, especially for system resources. Some geniuses thought that would be wonderful way to bypass the database problems with running a forum, but the idea was shot down quickly when the benefits vs. real performance were explained.
But that's another issue.
Cerb, the way you admin will change a lot when grandma will be doing your tasks with a GUI and a simple step-by-step guide. It will have to be a GUI, as history shows it's the best interface the general public accepts. You know about the Dell servers that have DRAC cards? Do you know how popular they are to sysadmins? Yeah, it's not just because it's a one stop shop of the essentials to run a server, it's because a sysadmin can do his business (even remotely), and get back to other business quickly.
KISS principle is more than a string command.
When grandma's of the world can admin servers that are designed to automate general server admin tasks. It's when end users (server owners and/or operators) can run a server with the ease of a desktop. Bypassing the need for dedicated sysadmins, for the general server market and beyond.
System administration, as we know it now, in the future will go the way of the buggy whips. It has to be.
So wrap this up in context: multi browser platforms creates non standards which one source of compliance will not overcome -- no amount of crying and bashing will change the matter. Browsers by their very nature will specialize with new code for their audience. If the mass public wants blinking text, browser developers will offer it (even in W3C reads the Articles of War to web developers). Because of specialization there can't be a one standard to fit every browser, and because specialization make web designing a real time consuming chore, it maybe necessary to reserve resources to one browser that serves most of the market (which is what the program developers have to do too).
When the time comes when everyone is finally reading XML (or a new language), then compliance will be more uniform. That will not occur in the near future. So at this stage, to save resources, web designers may HAVE to make choices to pare down spent resources. It's understandable, and sometimes necessary.
BTW, I find it funny that purists seek one standard, meanwhile complain about MS, when the uniform nature of computer programs could only exist if there was a monolithic OS platform.
And for the server argument: GUIs are the only way the server environment will become user friendly to the masses, who in the future will be wanting their own servers for their own needs. It's just natural evolution for the masses to transcend the server market. And system administrators (like those Unix Ph.D's who once ran the IBM mainframes) will be left out, when grandma can do the same work with just a couple of clicks and a step-by-step guide that even 8 year-olds can understand.
It'll all has to be, because simplicity is the goal.
Originally posted by: Terumo
Really? So I haven't been doing "more then the basics" for the past 10 years or so? I've never done anything serious on windows. In fact, I'm helping a coworker move a bunch of his stuff off of windows to linux because its simply a better environment for what he's doing - much more stable under the workloads he's doing, better remote access, easier to script, etc. Actually, once he got "beyond the basics" is when windows didn't cut it anymore.
Windows isn't a serious player for the stuff I'm doing - cluster computing, etc.
Excuse me? Unix was the established player when windows was just a new toy.
Heck, even my 286 had MS-DOS and everything back them was IBM compatible (it's still operational. Have pics if you want to see a 1988 computer with 2k of memory and MS-DOS that still works - no Y2K scare there - even managed to cram Wordperfect 6.0 on it).
None of that evaluation could be possible if d/l a large program on a 56k or less modem prevented a preview. If it was difficult to get online, or required a special trip to a store to purchase a CD version, that limited it market considerbly.
MS was smart to include it with their OS. And by doing so, it became the browser of choice by simple availability. People are lazy by nature, they don't want to jump through hoops to do things. Browser icon is right there on their taskbar, just more simplier to use it instead.
That's why NS fought tooth and nail with MS over it's included browser. They knew that MS knew human nature. NS had no chance, despite purists hue and cry.
Purists don't define the market. Mass consumption does -- the speciality of MS, and what folks are afraid of in the end. MS has the popular OS, anything they can bundle into it and deliever, can spell the doom of other markets. It's why the other markets, in order to survive, must do what? Specialize.
And we're right back to square one again with compliance.
dude i think you have your versions mixed up. IE 3 was the awesome browser, IE 4 was the piece of crap with active desktop and 'channels'. NS 6 was the bad browser.
Originally posted by: Terumo
1. Yet.
2. Yes, but that's a tail chasing argument, because the same plagues CLI users who type the wrong switch (or worse d/l the wrong tar ball, and install a wrong or broken patch).
So your argument is moot. They both have the same problem, so why bring it up?
Have to think beyond the here and now, and in 10 years. There will be a revolution in the server sector to make system administration as easy as desktop computing has become. It takes an organization (a company most often) with the resources to do so. Either that'll come by another innovator, MS or Apple. Mostly likely MS, as it's expected to do it. It's not if MS will break into the server market wholesale, it's just when (same goes with Apple).
*nix is living the 1971 dream at the moment. 1981, and 1996, is coming up.
I can't deal with 10 years from now, the here and now is enough.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
As easy as desktop computing> Windows is a nightmare compared to a decent Linux distro, which allows you to do anything you want in the CLI, but also has the option of using GUI front ends. There will be no revolution. It's here. Now. Some people will make GUI tools, but the command-line will merely be hidden, not done away with. The way it has been working since the 70s is good, and merely needs a few layers added for ease of use of simple options. Try working with IIS, MS Proxy, or Exchange, and then Apache. If you just want to add a domain, the GUI is no sweat. When you want to tweak things and troubleshoot, which grandma will still ned someone else to do, it takes far more time and effort than bringing up Konsole, Xterm, etc., and doing it--which can be done right beside the GUI tools and testing utilities.Originally posted by: Terumo
1. Yet.
2. Yes, but that's a tail chasing argument, because the same plagues CLI users who type the wrong switch (or worse d/l the wrong tar ball, and install a wrong or broken patch).
Have to think beyond the here and now, and in 10 years. There will be a revolution in the server sector to make system administration as easy as desktop computing has become. It takes an organization (a company most often) with the resources to do so. Either that'll come by another innovator, MS or Apple. Mostly likely MS, as it's expected to do it. It's not if MS will break into the server market wholesale, it's just when (same goes with Apple).
*nix is living the 1971 dream at the moment. 1981, and 1996, is coming up.
System administration will not go away. There are just too many variables and configurations. its scope will narrow, and already has in recent years, but it won't go away as long as there are different things you can set up and do, and different things a company wants to set up and do.
You think grandma wants to worry about what is in the DMZ, and what can connect outside, to the LAN, what servers have priority over others, or any other such crap? No, she will just want it to work, work properly, and continue working properly. Current web-based and GUI admin tools aren't special, or even intuitive. They exist to do very simple tasks. There is no way to change that, and make it reasonably easy to use at the same time.
KISS only works when the setup is simple. In most business networks, it won't be. A CLI is not a bad interface. A GUI is not a bad interface. It depends on what you need to do. If the answer is, "Anything, and quickly," you need a CLI. If the answer is, "you know, the basic stuff," you can use a GUI fine. Admin work is very much about keeping problems from occuring. Sure, you'll make mistakes, and it isn't the simplest way to do things. But with a system made for it (OS X, Linux, *BSD), you can quickly and easily to anything with a few hundred keystrokes. That power hasn't gone away yet, and won't be going away any time soon.
XML will not make conpliance any better. MS has already shown they have no problems making custom sub-formats, regardless of any need. What will make it better is W3C stepping up and saying things should be done certain ways, so that different browsers will at least render things close enough that nobody will care.
Terumo, you seem to think that the GUI getting better will make the command line a thing of the past. Fortunately, you're wrong. Better GUI tools will make the GUI more useful, the command line less necessary, and make it easier to teach n00bs. However, it won't put command lines out of use by any stretch of the imagination. Look at OS X. The best GUI around has important things available via command line interface--because you should use the best tool for the job, not the one that looks prettiest.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
56k? At best, 24k, and I think I first tried NS 4 while on 14.4 AOL (it was awhile before this area got 28.8, much less 56k).
No one here is claiming MS business strategy was not good for them, or that they are idiots.[/quote]And by doing so, it became the browser of choice by simple availability. People are lazy by nature, they don't want to jump through hoops to do things. Browser icon is right there on their taskbar, just more simplier to use it instead.
That's why NS fought tooth and nail with MS over it's included browser. They knew that MS knew human nature. NS had no chance, despite purists hue and cry.[/quote]And that MS actually managed a better browser at the time.
Or start installing FF and removing easy access to IE, because no, I don't want to work on your PC again, and you haven't yet learned anything about safety on the web.
Mostly. See above
.TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter