One per 70? Perhaps if you are running a ton of clone servers or heaven forbid working at an ISP handling boxes for customers.

In the *real* world one normal admin per 35 or so is considered more normal for unix staff (with a senior admin for every 3-4 normal admins). While I have seen the numbers quoted by the parent they were very for generic servers in function and basically tons of copy (virtual) boxes. In addition if you are running a good deal of unix servers you more than likely have a lot of different functions spread out among clusters, one person responsible for all these apps as well as keeping the boxes well maintained, troubleshooting upgrades, etc... can be quite tiring. Unix boxes these days tend to do significantly more than they used to. On the flip side, managing unix boxes these days is quite easy thanks to ssh/cfengine/puppet other automation.

When I first started doing unix for pay, mid 90s, we had one admin per two servers which was a mirror of the typical university environment where there were single admins for important machines and tons of lackeys for all the sun/hp/dec desktops. By the year 2000 this had grown to around 20 servers for each admin, with senior staff expected to be able to handle functions across any cluster. These days if it is a smaller company, there's one senior admin, who may or may not be the Network/IT manager and they typically handle 30-40 servers if there are a number of functions spread out. Of course having tons of similar boxes makes this number much higher. The most I've ever handled was 165 servers spread across two admins, three sites, four major applications, tons of clusters, including DB/Application/LB/Development/etc...

Also, if you have 70 unix servers and only one admin, the point of failure for your organization is beyond catastrophic. That poor lil' admin guy is going to get many of the "what happens when a bus hits you" questions from 3rd parties/partners/other departments.

Says the person with the ID over one million.

Slashdot used to be quite fast with the aggregation, it is quite terrible now. When CNN or the BBC are reporting tech news faster than a site that is supposed to be for tech nerds that's a good indication of the quality and speed. What's worse is this write up actually has misinformation in it that was disproven ALREADY... but this is so slow coming here, well...

Europeans have this grand view of America based primarily on Television and the East Coast which looks rather terrible. Europe's countries are like some of our bigger states. The differences between the basic values of people in California, Texas and the upper East Coast are quite pronounced. Hell, those of us in north California, don't even want to be part of the US anymore. We'd be just fine going on our on way with our friend in Oregon and Washington. Having one of the world top 10 economies and being nearly completely self sufficient. As it is now the rich states like California subsidize the many failed states of our great union.

But back on point; the USA is quite a diverse country with many different mindsets across the entire spectrum depending on where you are. Don't assume just because someone is American they believe X. That's akin to saying all French and Germans think the same.

Think it was pretty obvious, he was speaking to the forced "mainstream" links and articles which were foisted upon Slashdot a few years back.

For some examples see the entire "Idle" section.

Nah ain't no man page, he's talking about svr4 stuff, yur gonna need to get a bsd 4.3 compatibility layer before you can awaken any ancient horrors.

... before or after the uid wipe?

The moderation system here at slashdot is terrible.

But then again most online moderation systems are. Quite simply, it is somewhat depressing that at this point we still don't have a good trusted "commenter identity" system that rewards good posters in a better manner. There are a number of proposed solutions out there but no one seems interested in implementing anything but the most basic systems. We have far too much idle computing power to be implementing this simple systems that don't scale in terms of reward or users.

So what if they gamed the system, it is a damn good tutorial. Did you even bother to go and look, or id you just decide to bitch?

kudos.

Apple is a weird company. On the one hand you have many parts of it which work on open concepts, even encourage them and contribute. On the other you have what appears to be an old contingent of assholes who in any attempt to maintain relevant within the growing beast that is Apple (not Apple Computer) do anything they can to wrestle the slightest bit of profit or just be dicks in general.

I am a huge fan of OSX as a client OS and have been a fan ever since NeXT "bought" Apple. The laptops are great gear and some of their ideas for media consumption are still unmatched. However Apple the company is becoming harder to stomach for me personally as they become the big kids on the block, unafraid of quickly fading into irreverence like they were only half a decade ago, throwing their weight around, "just cuz". This is a perfect example as disabling support for the Atom is an *active* change that affords the company absolutely nothing.

The "real" unix systems at work? What you start using unix in the early 90s or something?

SysV is the devil... unfortunately the wrong kind.

everyone has their favourite tool. vi is incredibly powerful and comes standard on dozens of unix variants, the place it has, it has earned.

your challenge is a bit off though, i can think of many things you can do in vi that you can also do in ultraedit or boxer or XXX, the difference being with vi, my hands never left the keyboard.

Listed dock improvements... twice, they are that good ;)

The SL upgrade is much more like going from Win 98 to Win 98 SE if it must be put in those terms.

Almost all of the upgrades are things under the hood that most users will notice little of, except the general speed up (which is quite significant in many parts), dock improvements, better Exchange support and improved dock functionality. This is a good update for tons of reasons most people shouldn't even really care about, so the pricing is quite justified.

You don't think the 180 you are paying them a year should cover the expansions? What if you had played the original game for years? Considering Blizz sells the expansions to stores for much lower than the $40 you end up paying... it just seems quite petty to me. Where's the loyalty to your customers?