I feel like banks/hospitals/air ports and what not should be criminally charged for using systems as outdated as some of them are for critical services. IE6 hasn't had a security patch in 8 fucking years. The most 'recent' operating system it can be installed on is windows xp/server 2003, which haven't had updates since 2014 and 2015 respectively.
because the biggest argument is "COST" when it comes to upgrading.
So like.. remove that part from the equation completely.
The the next biggest argument is... ???????? aka "IE6 is easier to do the shitty things we want to do" which was fine in 1998 because it was the only game in town with its activex control stuff. But now HTML5 is on the scene, so there is literally no more excuses for coddling that kind of behavior.
I was one of the leading people to push the hospitals up here to become more standards compliant because I absolutely refused to keep IE6 on our systems. So, the 5ish doctors that I supported at the time put a lot of pressure on the hospital for them to be able to do remote work. They were in the middle of a tech upgrade so I guess they figured that was a good place to put money into. One of my docs is the chairman of the committee that makes those decisions so I guess that came in handy.
Maybe I'm just tooting my own horn though, but they were on IE6 until like 6 years ago.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
RandomHajileNot actually a SnatcherThe New KremlinRegistered Userregular
That depends! I have seen Linux installs so out of date it would blow your mind. They had custom hardware drivers that had to be integrated into the kernel which meant that happened... exactly one time when they were written and the system was never updated again!
Which is still okay because the underlying system isn't being used to prop up IE6, and can be sufficiently locked down in most cases. Custom hardware is an edge case. People who are using Server2003 because they need remote desktop for the IE6 applications or just RDP for RDP's sake. It's dumb.
The real reason they don't upgrade is because it costs an arm and a leg to do so, and a lot of time. Updating Linux, outside of your weird esoteric hardware, is usually not difficult and can often be done over an existing install if you are feeling particularly daring.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Which is still okay because the underlying system isn't being used to prop up IE6, and can be sufficiently locked down in most cases. Custom hardware is an edge case. People who are using Server2003 because they need remote desktop for the IE6 applications or just RDP for RDP's sake. It's dumb.
The real reason they don't upgrade is because it costs an arm and a leg to do so, and a lot of time. Updating Linux, outside of your weird esoteric hardware, is usually not difficult and can often be done over an existing install if you are feeling particularly daring.
Because Linux requires people who know Linux, and they just can't randomly select one of their regular employees to be an "IT Also" because chances are they won't know Linux at all.
One of my companies biggest selling points is "no operating systems other than Windows."
Yes, to a lot of companies, that's a good thing. Seems weird to me, as we maintain our files and backups on a Linux distro, but eh...
Which is still okay because the underlying system isn't being used to prop up IE6, and can be sufficiently locked down in most cases. Custom hardware is an edge case. People who are using Server2003 because they need remote desktop for the IE6 applications or just RDP for RDP's sake. It's dumb.
The real reason they don't upgrade is because it costs an arm and a leg to do so, and a lot of time. Updating Linux, outside of your weird esoteric hardware, is usually not difficult and can often be done over an existing install if you are feeling particularly daring.
Because Linux requires people who know Linux, and they just can't randomly select one of their regular employees to be an "IT Also" because chances are they won't know Linux at all.
One of my companies biggest selling points is "no operating systems other than Windows."
Yes, to a lot of companies, that's a good thing. Seems weird to me, as we maintain our files and backups on a Linux distro, but eh...
Where's the downside here?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Which is still okay because the underlying system isn't being used to prop up IE6, and can be sufficiently locked down in most cases. Custom hardware is an edge case. People who are using Server2003 because they need remote desktop for the IE6 applications or just RDP for RDP's sake. It's dumb.
The real reason they don't upgrade is because it costs an arm and a leg to do so, and a lot of time. Updating Linux, outside of your weird esoteric hardware, is usually not difficult and can often be done over an existing install if you are feeling particularly daring.
Because Linux requires people who know Linux, and they just can't randomly select one of their regular employees to be an "IT Also" because chances are they won't know Linux at all.
One of my companies biggest selling points is "no operating systems other than Windows."
Yes, to a lot of companies, that's a good thing. Seems weird to me, as we maintain our files and backups on a Linux distro, but eh...
Where's the downside here?
They're cheap and businesses consider that a negative.
For us, it makes perfect sense. For them, it's like setting money on fire.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
RandomHajileNot actually a SnatcherThe New KremlinRegistered Userregular
Which is still okay because the underlying system isn't being used to prop up IE6, and can be sufficiently locked down in most cases. Custom hardware is an edge case. People who are using Server2003 because they need remote desktop for the IE6 applications or just RDP for RDP's sake. It's dumb.
The real reason they don't upgrade is because it costs an arm and a leg to do so, and a lot of time. Updating Linux, outside of your weird esoteric hardware, is usually not difficult and can often be done over an existing install if you are feeling particularly daring.
Because Linux requires people who know Linux, and they just can't randomly select one of their regular employees to be an "IT Also" because chances are they won't know Linux at all.
One of my companies biggest selling points is "no operating systems other than Windows."
Yes, to a lot of companies, that's a good thing. Seems weird to me, as we maintain our files and backups on a Linux distro, but eh...
This also describes companies like mine, where we're all internal IT. We're just on the edge of SMB and Enterprise, leaning more toward Enterprise solutions 90% of the time. I'm the only one with any Linux experience, and with our shorter staffing, there's no way in Hell we're ever going to use Linux outside of a few devices. A lot of the things I would have put on Linux had it been my choice initially can basically never be Linux now because of how busy and entrenched and lacking in expertise other than me.
I think this can all be recasted as Vendors are frustrating. I will say that going IE6->IE9 or later is a decent jump in terms of work as IE totally changed how it worked to be more like other browsers.
because the biggest argument is "COST" when it comes to upgrading.
So like.. remove that part from the equation completely.
The the next biggest argument is... ???????? aka "IE6 is easier to do the shitty things we want to do" which was fine in 1998 because it was the only game in town with its activex control stuff. But now HTML5 is on the scene, so there is literally no more excuses for coddling that kind of behavior.
I was one of the leading people to push the hospitals up here to become more standards compliant because I absolutely refused to keep IE6 on our systems. So, the 5ish doctors that I supported at the time put a lot of pressure on the hospital for them to be able to do remote work. They were in the middle of a tech upgrade so I guess they figured that was a good place to put money into. One of my docs is the chairman of the committee that makes those decisions so I guess that came in handy.
Maybe I'm just tooting my own horn though, but they were on IE6 until like 6 years ago.
Then the cost argument becomes "you've got to hire someone knowledgeable enough with Linux to be able to securely run that system". It's just shifting costs elsewhere. Admittedly, that's possibly a short-term cost that best-benefits the business, but hahahahahahahahaha business seem to have become exceptionally short-sighted.
Which is still okay because the underlying system isn't being used to prop up IE6, and can be sufficiently locked down in most cases. Custom hardware is an edge case. People who are using Server2003 because they need remote desktop for the IE6 applications or just RDP for RDP's sake. It's dumb.
The real reason they don't upgrade is because it costs an arm and a leg to do so, and a lot of time. Updating Linux, outside of your weird esoteric hardware, is usually not difficult and can often be done over an existing install if you are feeling particularly daring.
Because Linux requires people who know Linux, and they just can't randomly select one of their regular employees to be an "IT Also" because chances are they won't know Linux at all.
One of my companies biggest selling points is "no operating systems other than Windows."
Yes, to a lot of companies, that's a good thing. Seems weird to me, as we maintain our files and backups on a Linux distro, but eh...
Where's the downside here?
They're cheap and businesses consider that a negative.
For us, it makes perfect sense. For them, it's like setting money on fire.
Are we pretending system admins are more expensive just because they know Linux?
Most of us need to know Linux anyways since a lot of our tools are reliant on it.
The rest can be filled in with google.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Which is still okay because the underlying system isn't being used to prop up IE6, and can be sufficiently locked down in most cases. Custom hardware is an edge case. People who are using Server2003 because they need remote desktop for the IE6 applications or just RDP for RDP's sake. It's dumb.
The real reason they don't upgrade is because it costs an arm and a leg to do so, and a lot of time. Updating Linux, outside of your weird esoteric hardware, is usually not difficult and can often be done over an existing install if you are feeling particularly daring.
Because Linux requires people who know Linux, and they just can't randomly select one of their regular employees to be an "IT Also" because chances are they won't know Linux at all.
One of my companies biggest selling points is "no operating systems other than Windows."
Yes, to a lot of companies, that's a good thing. Seems weird to me, as we maintain our files and backups on a Linux distro, but eh...
Where's the downside here?
They're cheap and businesses consider that a negative.
For us, it makes perfect sense. For them, it's like setting money on fire.
Are we pretending system admins are more expensive just because they know Linux?
Most of us need to know Linux anyways since a lot of our tools are reliant on it.
The rest can be filled in with google.
I'm saying sysadmins are expensive period.
They want IT workers without paying for them, at least that goes for 95% of my clients. Having Linux would mean they would pay for them.
Still doesn't address that after 5 years you've probably already made your returns on the investment. That's not even super long term, that's short term.
I mean, it's not a quarterly profit thing but businesses don't even start making profits until year 3-5 usually.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Still doesn't address that after 5 years you've probably already made your returns on the investment. That's not even super long term, that's short term.
I mean, it's not a quarterly profit thing but businesses don't even start making profits until year 3-5 usually.
I understand and I get ya.
But a 5 year ROI is literally a thing that most places don't do when it comes to infrastructure.
Most hardware is rated to last at least 5 years, you should be doing due diligence there. I know I do.
What's the cost difference on different components and their average lifespan and all that, what's the ROI, etc.
You can't not when you're manager level. But I guess most people get to managers by failing their way through life. I mean my supervisor failed high school for christsake
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
She's the one who decided to sell our nice xerox printer that never failed for a brother that's broken down 3 times because the toner for the xerox was like $150 a pop instead of $50 (it also lasted 3 times as long).
So we've easily lost money on that decision, but I was overridden after I crunched the numbers and brought up the report.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Which is still okay because the underlying system isn't being used to prop up IE6, and can be sufficiently locked down in most cases. Custom hardware is an edge case. People who are using Server2003 because they need remote desktop for the IE6 applications or just RDP for RDP's sake. It's dumb.
The real reason they don't upgrade is because it costs an arm and a leg to do so, and a lot of time. Updating Linux, outside of your weird esoteric hardware, is usually not difficult and can often be done over an existing install if you are feeling particularly daring.
Because Linux requires people who know Linux, and they just can't randomly select one of their regular employees to be an "IT Also" because chances are they won't know Linux at all.
One of my companies biggest selling points is "no operating systems other than Windows."
Yes, to a lot of companies, that's a good thing. Seems weird to me, as we maintain our files and backups on a Linux distro, but eh...
Where's the downside here?
They're cheap and businesses consider that a negative.
For us, it makes perfect sense. For them, it's like setting money on fire.
Are we pretending system admins are more expensive just because they know Linux?
Most of us need to know Linux anyways since a lot of our tools are reliant on it.
The rest can be filled in with google.
I don't know shit about about Linux outside of some basic file system commands
I feel the biggest problems with leaning on *nix for your company are you immediately chop your pool of potential sysadmins way way down, as well as your vendor options. If you need to do <X> on a Windows platform, there may be a dozen software vendors that sell a package that does it. If you need to do <X> on a *nix platform there maybe two, or one, or none.
As a business that embraces linux for both our servers and workstations: There are a lot of reasons why businesses don't embrace linux.
The productivity software gap is by far the most major wall. I won't even call it a hurdle. It's a wall. If you have employees who do any fancy shit in Office at all, there is simply no open-source alternative that will do it. Libreoffice is pretty much the best out there and it is woefully awful in too many ways. The majority of your expected print settings are in the Format->Page menu??? What???
Then, those glorious updates. When you're supporting servers and your own workstation, they're not a big deal, they're pretty much never a problem. But there are a non-zero number of times that an update has killed an application like Firefox for all of my users, and the only way to reverse it (if I wanted to still use a package manager to maintain it, which is pretty much a given) is to install a much older version that the same maintainer has available, and hold the package, until a later date, when you've tested the update several times and are satisfied to allow people to auto-update again.
And then finally, you always are hiring new people. And those new people always will see that you're running linux, turn up their nose, and cry to upper management about it. Every time. To the point where you have to regularly justify the decision to people. And again, keep in mind that the productivity software complaint has actual teeth, so you're always going in there unarmed.
Now, it helps if you have in-house development that can shore up these limitations with in-house software. That's always great. But most companies won't even hire an IT guy, much less a programmer.
Which is still okay because the underlying system isn't being used to prop up IE6, and can be sufficiently locked down in most cases. Custom hardware is an edge case. People who are using Server2003 because they need remote desktop for the IE6 applications or just RDP for RDP's sake. It's dumb.
The real reason they don't upgrade is because it costs an arm and a leg to do so, and a lot of time. Updating Linux, outside of your weird esoteric hardware, is usually not difficult and can often be done over an existing install if you are feeling particularly daring.
Because Linux requires people who know Linux, and they just can't randomly select one of their regular employees to be an "IT Also" because chances are they won't know Linux at all.
One of my companies biggest selling points is "no operating systems other than Windows."
Yes, to a lot of companies, that's a good thing. Seems weird to me, as we maintain our files and backups on a Linux distro, but eh...
Where's the downside here?
They're cheap and businesses consider that a negative.
For us, it makes perfect sense. For them, it's like setting money on fire.
Are we pretending system admins are more expensive just because they know Linux?
Most of us need to know Linux anyways since a lot of our tools are reliant on it.
The rest can be filled in with google.
Fight me.
Bash at dawn.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
With that being said, I got to work and one of my cohorts told me the tale of how Exchange was down when he got in this morning (he gets in an hour before I do) because for some reason the cert binding on the exchange back end site port 444 in IIS randomly blanked itself out, when it should be on the default self signed exchange cert. Zero idea why that happened.
Google Docs is still bush league compared to MS Office, especially in spreadsheets.
implying anyone is ever really using that power and that most can figure out more than SUM
We do it here. We have someone from NelNet that used Excel's formulas extensively.
Word is just miles above Docs. There really isn't a comparison.
I know for a lot of people, the base level of Google Docs is fine... but it's far from professional. Formatting anything in IEEE on Google Docs is a fucking nightmare.
My office manager had an excel spreadsheet with all her values in her
then a column where the totals of each of the columns would end up
but she did it all by hand
and input the value
every month
I found this out, quite by accident, because she needed my help making a new worksheet for the new year when I first started. I saw it and I was like "why are you manually entering the value here?"
"What else am I supposed to do?"
"Well you can use an excel formula and have it sum up everything and put the result here"
"oh I can do that?"
"yeah you can do lots of wacky math stuff"
annnnnnnnnnnnnnd that was my first mistake. Instead of taking a class or picking up a book, it's just easier to call Bowen to figure it out. "I don't really know, I'd have to google it, why don't you google it and let me know if you need help from there." She never googles it and just gives up and comes back to me in a week.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
If MS was smart they'd do like they did with Apple and make a Nix version of Office.
Man, those Apple people sure snatched that Office shit up quick after years of saying it wasn't that good.
That's because for a long time Office on Mac was atrocious. It was a pure second class citizen to Windows Office. They fixed that with 2016, and parity does wonderful things.
If MS was smart they'd do like they did with Apple and make a Nix version of Office.
Man, those Apple people sure snatched that Office shit up quick after years of saying it wasn't that good.
That's because for a long time Office on Mac was atrocious. It was a pure second class citizen to Windows Office. They fixed that with 2016, and parity does wonderful things.
I've often wondered about that.
Most of the Apple software on PC is garbo as well, most notably iTunes (They stopped making that for PC, right?)
Wouldn't surprise me if it were some kind of ass-backwards pissing contest.
Posts
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Welp. . . Flying is no longer an option.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
So like.. remove that part from the equation completely.
The the next biggest argument is... ???????? aka "IE6 is easier to do the shitty things we want to do" which was fine in 1998 because it was the only game in town with its activex control stuff. But now HTML5 is on the scene, so there is literally no more excuses for coddling that kind of behavior.
I was one of the leading people to push the hospitals up here to become more standards compliant because I absolutely refused to keep IE6 on our systems. So, the 5ish doctors that I supported at the time put a lot of pressure on the hospital for them to be able to do remote work. They were in the middle of a tech upgrade so I guess they figured that was a good place to put money into. One of my docs is the chairman of the committee that makes those decisions so I guess that came in handy.
Maybe I'm just tooting my own horn though, but they were on IE6 until like 6 years ago.
This is a clickable link to my Steam Profile.
it'd be significantly easier for them to do so
The real reason they don't upgrade is because it costs an arm and a leg to do so, and a lot of time. Updating Linux, outside of your weird esoteric hardware, is usually not difficult and can often be done over an existing install if you are feeling particularly daring.
Because Linux requires people who know Linux, and they just can't randomly select one of their regular employees to be an "IT Also" because chances are they won't know Linux at all.
One of my companies biggest selling points is "no operating systems other than Windows."
Yes, to a lot of companies, that's a good thing. Seems weird to me, as we maintain our files and backups on a Linux distro, but eh...
Where's the downside here?
They're cheap and businesses consider that a negative.
For us, it makes perfect sense. For them, it's like setting money on fire.
This is a clickable link to my Steam Profile.
Then the cost argument becomes "you've got to hire someone knowledgeable enough with Linux to be able to securely run that system". It's just shifting costs elsewhere. Admittedly, that's possibly a short-term cost that best-benefits the business, but hahahahahahahahaha business seem to have become exceptionally short-sighted.
Are we pretending system admins are more expensive just because they know Linux?
Most of us need to know Linux anyways since a lot of our tools are reliant on it.
The rest can be filled in with google.
I'm saying sysadmins are expensive period.
They want IT workers without paying for them, at least that goes for 95% of my clients. Having Linux would mean they would pay for them.
And yes, most businesses are hilariously myopic.
I mean, it's not a quarterly profit thing but businesses don't even start making profits until year 3-5 usually.
I understand and I get ya.
But a 5 year ROI is literally a thing that most places don't do when it comes to infrastructure.
Most hardware is rated to last at least 5 years, you should be doing due diligence there. I know I do.
What's the cost difference on different components and their average lifespan and all that, what's the ROI, etc.
You can't not when you're manager level. But I guess most people get to managers by failing their way through life. I mean my supervisor failed high school for christsake
So we've easily lost money on that decision, but I was overridden after I crunched the numbers and brought up the report.
I don't know shit about about Linux outside of some basic file system commands
I feel the biggest problems with leaning on *nix for your company are you immediately chop your pool of potential sysadmins way way down, as well as your vendor options. If you need to do <X> on a Windows platform, there may be a dozen software vendors that sell a package that does it. If you need to do <X> on a *nix platform there maybe two, or one, or none.
The productivity software gap is by far the most major wall. I won't even call it a hurdle. It's a wall. If you have employees who do any fancy shit in Office at all, there is simply no open-source alternative that will do it. Libreoffice is pretty much the best out there and it is woefully awful in too many ways. The majority of your expected print settings are in the Format->Page menu??? What???
Then, those glorious updates. When you're supporting servers and your own workstation, they're not a big deal, they're pretty much never a problem. But there are a non-zero number of times that an update has killed an application like Firefox for all of my users, and the only way to reverse it (if I wanted to still use a package manager to maintain it, which is pretty much a given) is to install a much older version that the same maintainer has available, and hold the package, until a later date, when you've tested the update several times and are satisfied to allow people to auto-update again.
And then finally, you always are hiring new people. And those new people always will see that you're running linux, turn up their nose, and cry to upper management about it. Every time. To the point where you have to regularly justify the decision to people. And again, keep in mind that the productivity software complaint has actual teeth, so you're always going in there unarmed.
Now, it helps if you have in-house development that can shore up these limitations with in-house software. That's always great. But most companies won't even hire an IT guy, much less a programmer.
Fight me.
Bash at dawn.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Google Docs is still bush league compared to MS Office, especially in spreadsheets.
But if I'm being honest, I vastly prefer the Windows server/workstation environment. Like, it isn't even close.
The Powershell scripting language gives me migraines.
Could they possibly have made it any more convoluted?
implying anyone is ever really using that power and that most can figure out more than SUM
We do it here. We have someone from NelNet that used Excel's formulas extensively.
Word is just miles above Docs. There really isn't a comparison.
I know for a lot of people, the base level of Google Docs is fine... but it's far from professional. Formatting anything in IEEE on Google Docs is a fucking nightmare.
then a column where the totals of each of the columns would end up
but she did it all by hand
and input the value
every month
I found this out, quite by accident, because she needed my help making a new worksheet for the new year when I first started. I saw it and I was like "why are you manually entering the value here?"
"What else am I supposed to do?"
"Well you can use an excel formula and have it sum up everything and put the result here"
"oh I can do that?"
"yeah you can do lots of wacky math stuff"
annnnnnnnnnnnnnd that was my first mistake. Instead of taking a class or picking up a book, it's just easier to call Bowen to figure it out. "I don't really know, I'd have to google it, why don't you google it and let me know if you need help from there." She never googles it and just gives up and comes back to me in a week.
Because tables in Word are just too hard.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Man, those Apple people sure snatched that Office shit up quick after years of saying it wasn't that good.
That's because for a long time Office on Mac was atrocious. It was a pure second class citizen to Windows Office. They fixed that with 2016, and parity does wonderful things.
I've often wondered about that.
Most of the Apple software on PC is garbo as well, most notably iTunes (They stopped making that for PC, right?)
Wouldn't surprise me if it were some kind of ass-backwards pissing contest.