The biggest difference in the past 10 years is that everything has been abstracted and there's less time spent dealing with trivial, repetitive things for deployments and upkeep. We support more users now, per administrator, than we did back then by many a massive amplitude.

No more clickclickclick for various installations on Windows, for instance. No more janky bullshit to have to deal with for proprietary RAID controllers and lengthy offline resilvers. These things have been abstracted in the name of efficiency and the build requirements of cloud/cluster/virtualization/hosting environments.

We also have a lot more shit to take care of than we did a decade ago. Many of the same systems running 10 years ago are still running - except they've been upgraded and virtualized.

Instead of many standalone systems, most (good) environments at least have a modicum of proper capacity and scaling engineering that's taken place. Equipment is more reliable, and as such, there's more acceptable cyclomatic complexity allowed: we have complex SAN systems and clustered virtualization systems on which many of these legacy applications sit, as well as many others.

This also makes our actual problems much more difficult to solve, such as those relating to performance. There are fewer errors but more vague symptoms. We can't just be familiar with performance in a certain context, we have to know how the whole ecosystem will interact when changing timing on a single ethernet device.

Unfortunately, most people are neither broad or deep enough to handle this kind of sysadmin work, so much of the 'hard work' gets done by support vendors. This is in no small part due to in-house IT staffing budgets being marginal compared to what they were a decade ago, with fewer people at lower overall skill levels. Chances are that the majority of the people doing the work today are the same ones who did it a decade ago, in many locations, simply due to the burden of spinning up to the level required to get the work done. In other places, environments simply limp by simply on the veracity of many cheap systems being able to be thrown at a complex problem, overpowering it with processing and storage which was almost unheard of even 5 years ago.

The most obnoxious thing which has NOT changed in the past decade is obscenely long boot times. Do I really need to wait 20 minutes still for a system to POST sufficiently to get to my bootloader? Really, IBM, REALLY?!

How is it not long enough? It corroborates existing, known information - even 'best practice' of assuming drives are more likely to fail after 3 years, as well as that if a drive survives a year, they're likely to survive 3.

Things are mostly the same across the board. I'm not sure why anyone claiming 10% in the first year is 'low'.

This isn't surprising. To summarize: most early failures happen within the first year, and after 3 years, the survival rate drastically drops off.

This is a well-known phenomenon in IT storage, and it's why people will typically start replacing storage (or individual disks with any pre-fail signs) after 3 years.

That said, of the many disks I have still in service, most of them are older than 5 years, and I have some which are pushing 15 years old now without any concern of immediate failure. I've had pretty good luck with disk failures, and have only had SSDs die on me (Kingston, looking at you) personally.

Crysis 2. Metro 2033. Metro: Last Light. Supreme Commander 1 and 2.

Just off the top of my head - all those games will benefit greatly from a faster card (or CPU, in the case of Supreme Commander).

This. If possible, I like to use disks from the same vintage, but of slightly different runtime, into the same storage block (whatever your technology may be). It eliminates the need for different disk batches/etc. (which is a management headache to deal with after the fact, and can lead to weird perf issues) by staggering the likely failure.

Well, Nokia is basically just making just a handful of phones these days, the Lumias. In a market full of Androids and iPhones for years, they stand out a bit as being 'different'. And as far as the hardware is concerned, they're pretty high quality, with good battery life, and stand up to a beating. So they do have a niche.

The answer is obvious. They didn't find a hellish rocky world; they discovered Hell. Naturally, this verifies quite a few things.

As much as I dislike them, Juniper switches (which run FreeBSD, iirc) seem to be pretty damn common these days.

Enterprises won't move from Cisco for quite some time due to the institutional knowledge requirement: they've got a lot of equipment which requires people to maintain.

In a recession or depression like we're in, things like network infrastructure changing is uncommon. The big companies don't change things because change is risky and expensive (unless change is their business, such as in IT). Upheaval, mergers, etc. - those changes can cause potential IT infrastructure changes, yes, but it's not likely right now.

Sorry, I can't find anything of substance in this (worthless, InfoWorld) article. There's a handful of reasons why "Linux will be the next network OS" isn't holding any water:

* First and foremost, it's the license. No hardware vendor out there wants to be stuck supporting software in the way that a GPL'd product often requires. They want to control the platform, and they can't do that if it's truly open.
* Second, Linux has had iptables (and the menagerie of other tools) to make it a 'network OS' for years and years. It hasn't helped it gain much traction except in the SMB/home router market demographic.
* Third, Linux is lacking some of the important things that are necessary for network equipment these days - or at least, not as elegantly as other "free" options.
* There are many vendors which offer network equipment which does NOT run on Linux: Juniper, NET10, and pfSense based products all come to mind (and I've personally seen pfSense successfully blow Cisco solutions out of the water in price, redundancy, and performance with a markedly more capable configuration).
* Oh yeah, and nothing he says in the article is in any way exclusive to Linux; it can just as easily be applied to eg. FreeBSD or OpenBSD.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a dyed in the wool Linux fiend... but Linux doesn't really shine in this department.

Don't feel bad. At least you don't work for Juniper. That's a reputation an engineer can do without!

Think of it this way: Juniper has to hire the best and brightest, because if they don't, they're fucked. Their products are horrible; they need drastic improvement, and they don't have the market share like Cisco does to muscle competitors or victims.

Minor nitpick: there are 64 original levels, not 32. Once you beat the game, you can play it through again a second time with slightly different levels and different (harder) enemies.

I haven't been able to trigger the 'infinite lives' bug/easteregg yet, but presumably it's there - or maybe he didn't know about it?

Six months down the line, when those people are in the unemployment line and have given up looking for work, it'll be "We need more H1B visas, we can't find enough workers!"

Since when did the 1st Amendment (or any of the others not directly inferring government control) mean anything? I think it was probably around 2008.

In other words, it'll be yet another bludgeon being able to be used in court against a husband (or father).

At least it might help hinder the Paparazzi.

OK, so why are we hating on the guy (or girl) who distributed the picture to the Internet?

If someone is given something, they've presumably been given privilege to do with it as they please: masturbate to it, respond to it, share it with friends, share it with the world. Whatever, as long as they don't sell it. That's how these things work.

Don't like it, and don't trust the other person as much as you do a close friend or relative? Sign a contract - presumably goods of some sort are being exchanged, yes? Maybe it's nude pictures for esteem, perhaps.

Or, better yet, follow the following protocol: don't be a slut, or at least be a bit more selective. That goes for guys, too, though obviously there are more women sending nude selfies than guys. If you're going to trust someone, be damn sure they're trustworthy. (You have sex with a condom even when you trust someone enough to let them smear their genitals all over your own, so why not a little precaution with pictures?)

There's so much porn on the Internet at this point that I don't really get the fear. There are so many unnamed boobs on the Internet at this point (not including ACs) it hardly matters.