Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:About $2M -- But not really a mistake... (Score 2) 330 330

The poster was not the boss. The boss calls the final shots. The technician's job is to present the risks (trade-offs) as accurately and clearly as possible. If the boss(es) then choose to ignore the risk warnings, the blame falls on them. If you usurp their power, you are out the door (unless it's a legal matter).

Incidentally, I was in a somewhat similar situation where marketing planned to release about 30 websites for satellite offices all at once along with a press release about the new sites. I pointed out our "budget-oriented" infrastructure may not be able to handle such a sudden load, and suggested staggering the releases. Other technicians agreed with my warning, but the marketing chief was really disappointed, saying something like, "It's better P/R to have one big release. Staggering the releases takes the punch out of it."

I was tempted to respond, "30 crashed sites is not good P/R either", but smartly bit my tongue (based on prior experience with "reality" statements). He was a true P-H-B, always looking for a cheap short-sighted shortcut, but tried to blame us when his paper tigers got eaten. He drove one guy to retire early. Later he was under investigation for giving contracts to his buddies instead of basing them on merit. Not surprising, his buddies were also idiots.

Comment: Re:The Final Nail (Score 2) 330 330

Databases should be backed up with a text-dump (such as an SQL INSERT list), not the actual database file, because of the internal pointers that are fragile. A text-dump "flattens" the pointers. If you do use the actual database file as a backup, shut all DB writing off first, during the backup. And keep multiple generations.

Comment: Re:The short answer is nothing (Score 1) 105 105

Domain names are a limited resource, somewhat analogous to real estate in that there are areas that are popular and areas that are not. So right now everyone wants to live in Hong Kong and everyone thinks they have a right to do so for the same price it costs them to live wherever they are now.

With domain this makes sense because there is no real issues like with real estate. There is no one who is going to have to move to another country instead of staying close to their family, so there is no push for rent controls or bans on foreign ownership. So the actual issue of a domain name is purely a matter of arbitrary convenience.

This becomes more so as we expand the TLDs. And more so, as in this case, where the owner is just casually using a domain. It is no so much a matter of millions of dollars of good will, but of exploiting the resource period. I would also say that you do not buy a domain so much as rent it. This is why I suggest to my clients that they rent/buy the domain for the longest time possible.

I think this is question is a result of either a high level of paranoia or the realization by the poster that domain name squatting is not the business it used to be. If this is a typosquatted domain, and it is a primary email address, then get another email address. If it a serious domain, get some content on it.

Comment: Re:But the best way to deliver that ... (Score 1) 109 109

I think we all appreciate that this person went to b-school and therefore is well trained in using buzz words and maximizing quarterly profits, but Google works because unlike most other dot coms, it does deliver products to generate a profit, not just data that one day may be used for a profit.

At the time when Google was on the rise, web browsers began to let user manage 'cookies'. This was a new concept to everyone back then, but web companies were learning to use cookies to track users, and end users were learning to turn them off to protect privacy. Companies like 2o7, which thought they could win by obfuscating their domain name, were driven into oblivion by companies like Google who were making a much fairer trade. Google provided a service for data collection, that first service being the search App, and in return they got user data which could be used to build an ad service business.

To be honest Google search now sucks and any actual consumer products are too expensive to provide any value. Like MS, google end user products are only affordable because the manufacturers take a hit on profits. This is why Apple has only a small share of the mobile phone market, but most of the profits.

So at the end of the day, all Google has is the apps. And the killer app, google docs, has not been updated in a long time. Maps has credible competitors. Bing under new owners could be a player, which it wasn't with MS because it was just a small cog in huge machine. Google can be forgiven because it provides descent products for no cost, even if those products are crappy. It is like broadcast TV. People will watch it, and maybe buy some of the stuff in the ads, because what else is there to do?

But Google without apps, with only search, is going to be highly vulnerable. At some point someone is going to figure a way to compete with Google, and if all Google has to back up ads is search, they are going to be easy pickings.

Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition. - Isaac Asimov