Comment Jira (Score 1) 428
Jira. Not free, but they are running a deal for 10 user licenses for $10.
I've used trac and Bugzilla. Jira is far better than both.
Jira. Not free, but they are running a deal for 10 user licenses for $10.
I've used trac and Bugzilla. Jira is far better than both.
Five years, feh. I can't barely recognise the code I wrote 3 months ago.
I regularly look at some code and say, "who wrote this crap?". After checking the history I find it was me.
Code never lies. It may mislead but it never outright lies.
It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.
Indeed. We should extend this to all people who are unable to financially contribute to society. Let's start with the mentally disabled. I seem to recall that there was a plan to do this some time ago.
Try to think these things through, fascist. Libertarianism seems attractive when you are relatively self sufficient. That state may change through no fault of your own.
Actually only a small proportion would be that. There generally aren't all that many bulls on a farm. A larger proportion would be steer shit and cow shit.
This is more true than you probably actually meant.
The Roman Catholic church has not repudiated the doctrines that enabled the selling of indulgences. For the Catholic church there would be nothing theologically wrong with selling indulgences again.
Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/566/
I mean seriously, do they have to invade Poland?
Wow, Godwined already. Only at Slashdot can an article about a computer manufacturer and a supermarket chain get godwined so quickly.
Many of the apps we used (hello, Oracle Colaboration suite, looking at you) require really messing with system files to make work decent. This makes other programs very unhappy, so apps like these really need to run on their own box.
This makes sense now: incompetent server developers are the driver behind this aspect of VMs. Other aspects are independent of this, but a lot of people responding here have simply taken for granted that most servers are written by monkeys, and are therefore unable to play nicely with others.
I kind of figured this was the case, having written server code (back in the '90's) and seen the gyrations my team went through to make sure we were able to run without requiring a stepped-on environment, but I found it hard to believe that badly-written server code had become so common as to make virtualization the only viable solution.
Yes and no. As I said before a server typically runs at 5%-15% utilization. So if you want to get the most out of your hardware without virtualization, you'd need to run the equivalent of 6-20 servers' worth of applications on there. So that means that for example you may have a domain controller, a print server, a file server, an IIS server, an Apache server, a Tomcat server, the backup server, etc. all on one box. So if the backup server isn't doing anything and you want to install a patch and reboot it, you now bring down all of those other services, or you have to wait until off hours to do it.
Yes, poorly written code and custom configuration is a good reason to go to virtualization, but even properly written software works better when a server is isolated for one or a few select purposes, in the sense that you won't effect other systems when you need to be brought down.
I've never really understood the fuss around VMs. Sure , they're useful if you want to test run an OS install or run a different OS on top of another. But otherwise whats the point? Instead of having app + OS you end up with app + VM + OS so how exactly is that benefiting anyone other than the power company for the extra electricity used?
Because for the most part, most servers don't run anywhere near full capacity (and if they do, then they are probably not good candidates for virtualization, except possibly for high availability purposes which I will go over in the second paragraph). I forget the study but I read once that on average a typical server sits at 5-15% utilization. So the idea behind products like VMware ESX is that if you need 5 unique servers, instead of buying 5 servers at $5,000 a piece, you buy 1 server for $5,000 + 1 $5,000 VMware license, and run the 5 virtual servers on that. So you spend $10,000 instead of $25,000, and your footprint is 1/5th of what it was before, meaning less racks, less cooling, less power, etc. And the numbers I gave are very conservative. A lot of people do 10-20 VMs per server easily.
So cost, power, and cooling issues aside, there are other issues. In a typical server environment, if a physical server suffers from a catastrophic hardware failure, that server is down until someone can walk over and swap the hardware. With VMware, if a VM is running on a server and that server fails, the VM is cold booted on another ESX server automatically, and is typically up in 30-60 seconds. With the newest release of ESX server, called vSphere, they take it a step further. You can optionally choose to have A VM mirror itself on to another physical ESX server. So in the event of a hardware failure, the VM keeps running on the mirrored host. And then, it becomes the primary VM and sets itself up to mirror automatically on another ESX server. So you have ZERO downtime and the app re-mirrors itself. These are just some of the many useful features in VMware.
And no, I do not work for VMware. I am a contractor for the Air Force and over the past 2 years I have converted almost 200 physical servers to VMs. We are a relatively small program, but our projections show that we will save $2,000,000 over 10 years just on the cost of servers (and yes, i have added in the cost of VMware licenses and support into that equation), and that doesn't even account for power and cooling savings. We've gone from almost 200 physical servers distributed over 7 full racks racks down to 28 servers in 2 racks (2 racks only because they are two separate facilities. Each rack only contains a single HP c-class chassis)
I think the real question is, how can you NOT understand the fuss around VMs?
Whether you're proud of the Nazi's or not, they happened and were the pride of germany for many many years and did a great deal more to advance this world then any other group in history.
I hope for your sake that is a typo of some sort.
Don't you think there might possibly be some middle ground between killing people and sitting back and taking it? I find it interesting that you equate someone breaking into your home somehow immediately equates to physical threats against yourself, your wife or your family. The fact that someone has broken into your house does not immediately constitute a physical threat.
You come across as a paranoid vigilante who wants to execute people for breaking into his house. In any sane juristriction, following through on that would result in a either a murder or a manslaughter conviction.
I will not shoot someone on sight for trespassing. But I will shoot someone who routinely (or even once) burglarizes my home...
Wow nice sense of proportion, death for burglary. The law might be on your side in your country state, but that doesn't make it right or moral.
I'm using ME for a useful task - I have it on a PC in the garage that I'm using to prop up a pile of lumber.
But you know it would do a much better job running under another 98, even 95.
Good on govt. for doing what should have been done before telstra was sold. This actually ensures that there will be some competition, rather than a continual requirement for regulation. In its current form, telstra is a recipe for anti-competitive strategies. With a monopoly on copper, they have a retail arm and a wholesale arm, that sells to companies who compete with the retail arm.
Sol and his amigos didn't exactly help telstra either. In Australia the government is not afraid of regulating with the consumer in mind.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker