Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Apple Pay is good for the merchant (Score 1) 631

by hejish (#48252633) Attached to: Why CurrentC Will Beat Out Apple Pay
Many are saying Apple Pay offers nothing to the merchant. Tell that to the former CEO of target ( ) While tracking marketing data for customers is important to merchants, not having expensive data breaches is more important. Also, everyone seems to be ignoring that POS systems can be programmed to allow customers to enter their membership card first (or type in their phone number) enabling _plenty_ of customer tracking. Walgreens does this, and they use Apple Pay. The get all the customer-tracky goodness without the PCI-just-isn't-good-enough-any-more credit card information business danger.

Comment: What about Oracle Linux? (Score 1) 666

by hejish (#37888384) Attached to: How Can I Justify Using Red Hat When CentOS Exists?
If you consider CentOS, have you considered Oracle Linux. Why I've used RedHat: I use software packages not supported under CentOS. Those packages (including Oracle database software) are supported under Oracle linux. With Oracle Linux, you can choose to go a very-much-like CentOS path and not get support and not pay, or you can choose to pay and get support where you need it. Real support, not the "it is better to get help from the community than expect actual help from the company you are paying" kinds of support. I am NOT an Oracle linux user. I am evaluating this issue right now.

Comment: No to TV directly getting internet services (Score 1) 367

by hejish (#36243384) Attached to: Are Streaming Media Players a Passing Fad
I do not want my TV directly getting internet services. I do not want streaming direct to my TV. I like using a Wii, Roku, Apple TV, etc. to hook up to my TV to do that for me. I hate the idea that my TV could be a security problem. TV manufacturers are not known for frequent firmware updates or their ability to understand the possible impact of being internet accessible.

Comment: Anti-trust on a product not in the market???? (Score 2, Insightful) 260

by hejish (#32535162) Attached to: Apple iAd Drawing Antitrust Scrutiny
Google will not allow me to put my own ad engine to work on their site. Since when does an anti-trust investigation start when a service or product is not even on the market? This is at best premature. iphones do not rule the internet, and if Apple wants to experiment with different service offerings, then let 'em.

Comment: Tape is great, tape is cheap (Score 1) 228

by hejish (#32530598) Attached to: Recent Sales Hint That Tape For Storage Is Far From Dead
LTO4 tapes... Cost around $30 each for .8-1.6TB depending on your data. They are cheaper than "a Fry's disk" - they cost at most 1/3 the price of really cheap disk. If you have the infrastructure, they can even be encrypted. Tape wears better when being driven around. Costs 15% or 1/7 as much, roughly, as a disk to disk solution. Admittedly tapes do take up more personnel time, however. For everyone who says backup to disk, I say it is great if you have the money. If I need to keep one full backup per week for 1 month, and one full backup per month for 1 year, I have about 16 copies. Doing this to disk requires, typically, for data I deal with, at least 2 disks for backup for each original disk of data. Often it might be more. Then, to do it right, you need to put another copy in another location - so to be generous, you now have 4 disks in addition to the original one. Enterprise storage costs around 10x a cheap disk, meaning the disk solution, with 4 extra disks per disk of data, is 4x10=40 units vs a tape is 1/3 the cost of cheap disk... 16/3=6 ... 40/6=6.666666 times as expensive - 1/6.66666 = .15 meaning tape costs 15% the cost of disk.

Best Telephone For Datacenters? 110

Posted by timothy
from the repeat-charlie-3-oclock-over dept.
An anonymous reader writes "I've been struggling to find an effective wireless/cordless phone headset for use in high noise environments, such as a datacenter. I'd love to have something like the helicopter pilots or aircraft carrier deckmen wear, but that can hook up to a pots line (or Bluetooth to a workstation with Skype). Has anybody found a solution they like for datacenter applications?"

Comment: Re:Backup to tape? (Score 1) 256

by hejish (#32425698) Attached to: 10 Tips For Boosting Network Performance

Seriously, does anyone backup to tape anymore?

Yes, people still backup to tape. LTO4 tapes are: 1) cheap - 1-2TB encrypted compressed for about $35/tape (cheaper than a Fry's disk!). 2) Easy to keep for a long time (I can keep a backup for 2+ years. That can be hard (or expensive) to do with a disk-to-disk based solution. If I want to use disk-to-disk and keep, say, one monthly backup for a year, I need at least 3-4x the disk space in my local disk-to-disk solution, and another copy in a remote location - 6-8x my disk space total. That costs a lot. Many people still use tape and will continue to do so.

Comment: Missing the point (Score 1) 501

by hejish (#29707243) Attached to: Why AT&T Should Dump the iPhone's Unlimited Data Plan
Apple negotiated the current AT&T customer contract concept for the iphone - not an easy thing to do. It has brought AT&T millions of new users, and brought smart phones into the hands of millions of new users, redefining the "smart phone market". AT&T has so many new expensive data plan users to whom it was unable to sell before. People are not leaving the platform much due to problems. Yes it is expensive to run, but this whole discussion of reasons this is bad is missing the point. It has been a phenomenal success. As much as some people like to say AT&T's reputation is being ruined, I applaud them for moving forward as they have. AT&T's reputation has improved by offering such a service with such a great device. However, If I could not have an unlimited usage plan, I would not have an iphone. If it cost more than it does, I would not have bought a second phone for a family member. Requiring the data plan for the phone means AT&T has some users who pay and do not actually use the plan much. If AT&T made me pay more for higher use, and then I had problems, I would be incredibly upset and would refuse to pay for what I was not getting anyway. As a side note I have found it interesting that AT&T has not been willing to make tethering available for the iphone at any price - there are people who would pay much for it, and I can tether on a separate device with AT&T for $60/month.

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir