Search Results

Search found 1266 results on 51 pages for 'cons'.

Page 43/51 | < Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >

  • Managing an application across multiple servers, or PXE vs cfEngine/Chef/Puppet

    - by matt
    We have an application that is running on a few (5 or so and will grow) boxes. The hardware is identical in all the machines, and ideally the software would be as well. I have been managing them by hand up until now, and don't want to anymore (static ip addresses, disabling all necessary services, installing required packages...) . Can anyone balance the pros and cons of the following options, or suggest something more intelligent? 1: Individually install centos on all the boxes and manage the configs with chef/cfengine/puppet. This would be good, as I have wanted an excuse to learn to use one of applications, but I don't know if this is actually the best solution. 2: Make one box perfect and image it. Serve the image over PXE and whenever I want to make modifications, I can just reboot the boxes from a new image. How do cluster guys normally handle things like having mac addresses in the /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg* files? We use infiniband as well, and it also refuses to start if the hwaddr is wrong. Can these be correctly generated at boot? I'm leaning towards the PXE solution, but I think monitoring with munin or nagios will be a little more complicated with this. Anyone have experience with this type of problem? All the servers have SSDs in them and are fast and powerful. Thanks, matt.

    Read the article

  • Redis as substitution for Memcache

    - by Boban P.
    We have distributed web app, and for now, as session handler, we use two separate instances of memcache in redundancy, so everything that is written in one memcache is also written in other. Memcache is fairly easy to install, use, and maintain but we have one problem: if one memcache fail, everything is fine, php comunicate with other instance which has all data (although, half of connections have a delay because they try to use failed one, wait a little, and then contact other memcache). When failed instance comes back to life again, it starts up empty. If established session request data from that instance, session fails, and user logs out, and that happens to half of users.So, we are thinking about to switch to redis for session handling, and maybe keep memcache for cache only. My questions are: If we setup redis instances as master-slave, and if master fails, can sentinel promote slave as new master and when old master comes back to life, will it stay as slave or not? Is redis call malloc at startup to allocate part of memory, like memcache or varnish, or it calls malloc for every key inserted? And what are pros and cons of that?

    Read the article

  • Is the APC BR700G UPS (or similar) compatible with Active PFC power supplies?

    - by David Zaslavsky
    I'm looking at getting a UPS for my home computer. So far the APC BR700G looks very promising, except for one thing: one of the reviews on Newegg says that this UPS does not work with a power supply with Active PFC. Pros: Unit looks great, built well, very heavy, was excited to use it. Cons: Didn't research enough - many newer power supplies like my corsair 750w (and yes dells and other mainstreamers sell them too) that I bought last year have a feature called active pfc (power factor corrected). The signal for this backup battery doesn't fully support that feature and can cause issues. You can find an article on APCs site if you search their user forums for PFC. And the power supply in my computer is, in fact, an Active PFC PSU. I've already found one answer on this site claiming that it's not an issue, that "most quality supplies these days have PFC and work just fine with a UPS." That disagrees with the review on Newegg. Can someone explain this discrepancy? Also, what is it exactly about a UPS that makes it incompatible with an Active PFC PSU? (if anything) Is there some way to tell based on the technical specifications, or do I just have to hunt for reviews online to avoid wasting my money? While any input would be appreciated, I would prefer to get an answer from someone with actual experience with similar UPS's and Active PFC power supplies, who can tell me whether it works or not.

    Read the article

  • Why is it bad to map network drives in Windows?

    - by Beeblebrox
    There has been some spirited discussion within our IT department about mapping network drives. In particular, it has been said that mapping network drives is A Bad Thing and that adding DFS paths or network shares to your (Windows Explorer/Libraries) Favourites is a far better solution. Why is this the case? Personally I find the convenience of z:\folder to be better than \\server\path\folder', particularly with cmd line and scripting (of course I'm not talking about hard-coded links, naturally!). I have tried searching for pros and cons of mapped network drives, but I haven't seen anything other than 'should the network go down, the drive will be unavailable'. But this is a limitation of any network-accessed storage... I have also been told that mapped network drives poll the network when the network resource is unavailable, however I haven't found more information on this. Wouldn't this still be an issue with other network access mechanisms (that is, mapped Favourites) whenever Windows tries to enumerate the file system (for example, when a file/folder picker dialog is opened)? -- Do network drives poll the network any more than a Windows Explorer library/favourite?

    Read the article

  • VMWare Setup with 2 Servers and a DAS (DELL MD3220)

    - by Kumala
    I am planning to use a VMWare based setup consisting of two VMWare servers (2 CPU, 256GB Memory) and a DAS (DELL MD3220 with 24x900GB disks). The virtual machines will be half running MS SQL databases (Application, Sharepoint, BI) and the other half of the VM will be file services, IIS. To enhance the capacity of the storage, we'll be adding a MD1220 enclosure with another 24x900GB to the MD3220. Both DAS will have 2 controllers. Our current measured IOPS is 1000 IOPS average, 7000 IOPS peak (those happen maybe twice per hour). We are in the planning phase now and are looking at the proper setup of the disks. The intention is to setup up both DAS one of the DAS with RAID 10 only and the other DAS with RAID 5. That will allow us to put the applications on the DAS that supports the application performance needs best. Question is how best to partition the two DASs to get best possible IOPS/MBps, each DAS will have to have 2 hot spares? For the RAID 5 Setup: Generally speaking, would it be better to have one single disk group across all 22 disks (24 - 2 hot spares) with both controllers assigned to the one disk group or is it better to have 2 disk groups each 11 disks, assigned to one of the two controllers? Same question for the RAID 10 setup: The plan is: 2 disks for logs (Raid 1), 2 Hotspare and 20 disks for RAID 10. Option 1: 5 * 4 disks (RAID 10), with two groups assigned to 1 controller and 3 groups to the other controller Option 2: One large RAID 10 across all the disks and have both controllers assigned to the same group? I would assume that there is no right or wrong, but it all depends very much on the specific application behaviour, so I am looking for some general ideas what the pros and cons are of the different options. IF there are other meaningful options, feel free to propose them.

    Read the article

  • Is Cherokee (probably) the best static content server for beginner sysadmins?

    - by Bad Learner
    I have read the pros and cons of most of the popular web servers and have come to a conclusion that Apache would (probably) be the best web server for serving dynamic content - - no wonder YouTube, Flickr and Facbook, among many others, use it. I do not know if that C10K problem applies to Apache even when serving dynamic content only, but I think any web server used to serve dynamic content needs some good tweaking for optimized performance, and the fact that nothing beats Apache when it comes to documentation, resources and support on the web, I think should will go with Apache for dynamic content. That apart, the confusion begins when it comes to choosing web servers for static content (including streaming videos). I see that Nginx, Cherokee and Lighttpd are among the best (I am not considering non-open source or non-linux stuff here). So, which too choose? I know one cannot go wrong with any of the three (Nginx, Cherokee, Lighttpd). Lighttpd's development has evidently gotten slower than it was a good time ago. The documentation is pretty good for all the three, and hopefully, so are the resources (knowledge of these among the users of Stackoverflow/Serverfault sites, the web etc). Precisely, and noting point [2] and [3], if I am not wrong, I should either go with Nginx or Cherokee. I would love to see someone clarify these... is Cherokee just as fast (mb/s), performant (connections/s), and reliable (think downtime/restarting server) as Nginx for serving static content and load balancing, for small, medium to large (and really large) websites and applications? (Think, the size of YouTube, Apache or Facebook.) if the answer for the Q above is a big "hell, yes!" then, I should probably prefer Cherokee, right? Because, since I am a beginner, it would a lot easier to setup Cherokee as it has a graphical admin user interface + really good documentation. Yes? I could be wrong, I could be right. I put down what I know so that you can offer most relevant advise. Pardon if anything I've said is offensive.

    Read the article

  • What to look for in a switch with LAN/WAN verses an iSCSI SAN?

    - by Luke
    I'm setting up a VMWare ESXi 5 environment with 3 server nodes. Dell recommended 2x Force10 S60 switches shared (iSCSI SAN, LAN/WAN). The S60 switches are extremely powerful. They have 1.25 GB of buffer cache, < 9us latency. But they are very expensive (online price ~$15k per switch, actual quote a little less). I've been told that "by the book" you should at least have 2 internal switches for SAN, and 2 switches for LAN/WAN (each with a redundant). I know some of the pros and cons of each approach. What I'm wondering is, would it be more cost effective to disjoin the SAN from LAN with less expensive switches? The answer to this question highlights what I should be looking for in a switch for the SAN. What should I be looking for in a LAN/WAN switch, in comparison to the SAN? With the above linked question for the SAN: How is buffer latency measured? When you see 36 MB of buffer cache, is that shared or per port? So 36 MB would be 768kb or 36MB per port? With 3 to 6 servers how much buffer cache do you really need? What else should I be looking at? Our application will be heavily using HTML5 websockets (high number of persistent connections). The amount of data being sent is small; Data sent between client <- server isn't broadcasted (not a chat/IM service). We will be doing some database reporting too (csv export, sums, some joins). We are a small business and on a budget. We'd probably only be able to spend no more than $20k on switches total (2 or 4).

    Read the article

  • Apache 2.4 with PHP-FPM

    - by tubaguy50035
    I'm trying to setup Apache 2.4 with PHP-FPM 5.4 using the new modules with Apache 2.4. The following is what I have currently in my virtual host file: <VirtualHost *:80> ServerAdmin root@localhost DocumentRoot /var/www #Directory permissions <Directory /var/www/> Options Indexes FollowSymLinks MultiViews AllowOverride None Require all granted </Directory> CustomLog ${APACHE_LOG_DIR}/access.log combined </VirtualHost> I have PHP-FPM running using Unix sockets with a sock file located at /var/run/php5-fpm.sock. How do I proxy my requests to this sock file? I've seen some sites say to use ProxyPassMatch and others are saying Rewrite Rule. Are there pros or cons on either side? Also, most sites I'm seeing are showing ProxyPassMatch with a regex to only pass .php files. Could I also send it .html files? For whatever reason, we have a ton of PHP inside .html files. Edit: As noted in the comments, it looks like mod_proxy_fcgi doesn't support Unix sockets. Is there another module I should be using?

    Read the article

  • Should I keep my ex-employer's data?

    - by Jurily
    Following my brief reign as System Monkey, I am now faced with a dilemma: I did successfully create a backup and a test VM, both on my laptop, as no computer at work had enough free disk space. I didn't delete the backup yet, as it's still the only one of its kind in the company's history. The original is running on a hard drive in continuous use since 2006. There is now only one person left at the company, who knows what a backup is, and they're unlikely to hire someone else, for reasons very closely related to my departure. Last time I tried to talk to them about the importance of backups, they thought I was threatening them. Should I keep it? Pros: I get to save people from their own stupidity (the unofficial sysadmin motto, as far as I know) I get to say "I told you so" when they come begging for help, and feel good about it I get to say nice things about myself on my next job interview Nice clean conscience Bonus rep with the appropriate deities Cons: Legal problems: even if I do help them out with it, they might just sue me for keeping it anyway, although given the circumstances I think I have a good case Legal problems: given the nature of the job and their security, if something leaks, I'm a likely target for retaliation Legal problems: whatever else I didn't think about I need more space for porn. Legal problems. What would you do?

    Read the article

  • Does my Oracle DBA need root access?

    - by Dr I
    I'm currently discussing with my Oracle DBA Collegue that request a root access on our production servers. I'm not so hot to let him use the root access on our production servers. He is arguing that he need it to perform some operations like restarting the server and some other obscure arguments. The point is that I'm not agree with him because I've set him a Oracle user/group and a dba group where Oracle user belong. Everything is running smoothy and without any root permissions for now. I also think that all administrative tasks like scheduled server restart and so one need to be operated by the proper administrator (The Systems administrator on our case) to avoid any kind of issues related to a misunderstanding of the infrastructure interactions. So, I need the help of both, sysadmins and Oracle DBAs to lead me on the correct direction. If my collegue really need this rights I'll give him, but I'm just basically quite affraid of that because of security and integrity concerns. I know that my collegue is really good as a Oracle DBA and he know is work very well, but I also know that I've very few cases where a software and its admin really need root access. Once again, I'm not looking for pros/cons but rather an advice on the way that I should take to deal with this situation.

    Read the article

  • When should NTPd broadcast/broadcastclient be used instead of client/server or peer modes?

    - by Luke404
    The NTP deamon if often used in its simplest mode, which is client/server: you specify one or more server directives in your ntp.conf and your clients will use those servers. In addition to that, when you run your own NTP servers, it is good practice to peer them together, so if one of them looses connectivity to its upstream servers, it will get time from its peers. But NTPd can also work with broadcast and/or multicast distribution of time data, with the documentation stating: broadcast and multicast modes are intended for configurations involving one or a few servers and a possibly very large client population The documentation also says elsewhere: It is possible and frequently useful to configure a host as both broadcast client and broadcast server. A number of hosts configured this way and sharing a common broadcast address will automatically organize themselves in an optimum configuration based on stratum and synchronization distance. I can see one obvious administrative benefit: you don't have to manually specify and update your list of NTP servers in the clients ntp.conf, so to me it looks tempting to use broadcast mode even for a small client population (say 5+ clients with 3~4 servers). I expect network traffic to be a little higher with broadcasts instead of client/server associations, but given the usual gigabit ethernet LAN the impact should be negligible unless you have a very very large number of hosts in the same broadcast domain. At the end of the day, when should broadcast mode be used or avoided? Are there pros and cons I haven't seen?

    Read the article

  • How to minimize the risk of employees spreading critical information?

    - by Industrial
    Hi everyone, What's common sense when it comes to minimising the risk of employees spreading critical information to rivalling companies? As of today, it's clear that not even the US government and military can be sure that their data stays safely within their doors. Thereby I understand that my question probably instead should be written as "What is common sense to make it harder for employees to spread business critical information?" If anyone would want to spread information, they will find a way. That's the way life work and always has. If we make the scenario a bit more realistic by narrowing our workforce by assuming we only have regular John Does onboard and not Linux-loving sysadmins , what should be good precautions to at least make it harder for the employees to send business-critical information to the competition? As far as I can tell, there's a few obvious solutions that clearly has both pros and cons: Block services such as Dropbox and similar, preventing anyone to send gigabytes of data through the wire. Ensure that only files below a set size can be sent as email (?) Setup VLANs between departments to make it harder for kleptomaniacs and curious people to snoop around. Plug all removable media units - CD/DVD, Floppy drives and USB Make sure that no configurations to hardware can be made (?) Monitor network traffic for non-linear events (how?) What is realistic to do in a real world? How does big companies handle this? Sure, we can take the former employer to court and sue, but by then the damage has already been caused... Thanks a lot

    Read the article

  • Goal setting/tracking packages for software projects

    - by Avi
    I'm a developer working by myself. I'm looking for a computerized tool to manage my goals and activities. I own it Microsoft Project, but I don't like it. I've started many "projects" but could never keep on using it. Too complex and heavyweight for me. I use MS-Outlook tasks. They are not what I need. No planning capability. Tracking is not nice. I'm using the Pomodoro technique and I like it, but I'm looking for something more comprehensive and with better computerized support. Something that would allow me to define goals with dependencies and time estimation, keep daily prioritized lists etc. So, I'm looking for a solution. One I've found is GoalPro, but I uneasy because I could not find a cross-product "top ten" like review. Are you using any goal setting package such as GoalPro? Which? Does it help? Pros and Cons?

    Read the article

  • Linux Cups raspberry pi offload processing to server

    - by jaredmsaul
    I am interested in setting up a raspberry pi as the local end of a printing solution. In my testing the pi chokes on acting as a complete cups based print server. It seems a little underpowered for some of the ghostscipt processing and other filtering that occurs-- particularly on larger or complex documents the processing time can be 5 or more minutes. My question is can the processing be largely done elsewhere and the prepared end product of the processing chain be fed to the pi for output on the connected printer? So in this scenario any arbitrary document (html, pdf, text) is initially 'printed' on a relatively powerful machine but the output is stored in a file. This file is then grabbed by the pi and with all the heavy work out of the way easily printed using cups. I know files can be pushed through cups in raw mode but I am fuzzy on the pros and cons and the applicability in what I describe. I have tested this with pdftops creating a ps file then feeding that raw to cups and I think it works but it seems like there may be a cleaner solution. This scenario would ideally work for any number of printer types.

    Read the article

  • Methods to transfer files from Windows server to linux server

    - by Raze2dust
    Hi, I need to transfer webserver-log-like-files containing periodically from windows production servers in the US to linux servers here in India. The files are ~4 MB in size each and I get about 1 file per minute. I can take about 5 mins lag between the files getting written in windows and them being available in the linux machines. I am a bit confused between the various options here as I am quite inexperienced in such design: I am thinking of writing a service in C#.NET which will periodically archive, compress and send them over to the linux machines. These files are pretty compressible. WinRAR can convert 32 MB of these files into a 1.2 MB archive. So that should solve the network transfer speed issue. But then how exactly do I transfer files to linux? I could mount linux drive on windows server using samba, or should I create an ftp server, or send the file serialized as a POST request. Which one would be good? Also, I have to minimize the load on the windows server. Mount the windows drive on linux instead. I could use the mount command or I could use samba here (What are the pros and cons of these two?). I can then write the compressing and copying part in linux itself. I don't trust the internet connection to be very stable, so there should be a good retry mechanism and failure protection too. What are the potential gotchas in these situations, and other points that I must be worried about? Thanks, Hari

    Read the article

  • Who should I run mysql as, on a personal computer?

    - by user664833
    I just installed mysql via homebrew (with brew install mysql, on Mac OS X Mountain Lion - recently installed from scratch). Following the installation, there is a "caveats" section with options around further necessary actions to take: ==> Caveats Set up databases to run AS YOUR USER ACCOUNT with: unset TMPDIR mysql_install_db --verbose --user=`whoami` --basedir="$(brew --prefix mysql)" --datadir=/usr/local/var/mysql --tmpdir=/tmp To set up base tables in another folder, or use a different user to run mysqld, view the help for mysqld_install_db: mysql_install_db --help and view the MySQL documentation: * http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/mysql-install-db.html * http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/default-privileges.html To run as, for instance, user "mysql", you may need to `sudo`: sudo mysql_install_db ...options... Start mysqld manually with: mysql.server start Note: if this fails, you probably forgot to run the first two steps up above A "/etc/my.cnf" from another install may interfere with a Homebrew-built server starting up correctly. To connect: mysql -uroot To launch on startup: * if this is your first install: mkdir -p ~/Library/LaunchAgents cp /usr/local/Cellar/mysql/5.5.27/homebrew.mxcl.mysql.plist ~/Library/LaunchAgents/ launchctl load -w ~/Library/LaunchAgents/homebrew.mxcl.mysql.plist * if this is an upgrade and you already have the homebrew.mxcl.mysql.plist loaded: launchctl unload -w ~/Library/LaunchAgents/homebrew.mxcl.mysql.plist cp /usr/local/Cellar/mysql/5.5.27/homebrew.mxcl.mysql.plist ~/Library/LaunchAgents/ launchctl load -w ~/Library/LaunchAgents/homebrew.mxcl.mysql.plist You may also need to edit the plist to use the correct "UserName". On previous versions of Mac OS X I ran mysql as mysql user, but now I am confronted by the idea of running it as myself. I am the only one who uses this computer (which happens to be my laptop), and I do programming for work and for pleasure. What are the pros & cons, or best practices, around choosing whether to run mysql AS YOUR USER ACCOUNT or as mysql or something else still?

    Read the article

  • Recommendations for good Unix MTA / groupware solutions? [closed]

    - by Jez
    Possible Duplicate: Exchange server replacement that runs on Linux I'm setting up a Debian server, and one of the things I need on it is an MTA. I don't want to use something like Exim or Postfix because I want something that ties in SMTP, POP3, and IMAP all in one (a la Microsoft Exchange). Most MTAs also seem to be hellishly difficult to configure. Try and read the Exim documentation; you could do a university degree on it (I'm not kidding). When you can get an HTTP server like Cherokee which is easy to configure and has a nice web interface, do MTAs or groupware solutions need to be that hard? I'm aware that some people think "the Unix way" is to have lots of different interacting pieces of software (like maybe an SMTP MTA, POP3 service, webmail service, and overarching manager to tie them all together), but I think this is a situation where that just makes things a lot harder to deal with and one large software suite fits in much more nicely. So, I'm looking for good open source software suites that will run on Debian that: Combine (at least) SMTP, POP3, and IMAP Are easy(ish) to configure Have a nice configuration web interface or GUI Are not defunct projects I don't mind if it's groupware and offers calendaring too, but I would only be using the e-mail functionality for now. Another nice-to-have would be built-in webmail (if we're combining a bunch of functionality, why not?) Note however that I do NOT need Outlook support. I am not really looking for an "Exchange replacement drop-in". The suites I've found so far that seem to match the above criteria (and have appropriate licenses) are Citadel, Kolab, and Zimbra. I'd appreciate anyone who has experience with any of these giving me the pros and cons of them, such as how easy they are to configure and what their performance is like. I'd also appreciate any other suggestions for solutions that fulfil my criteria that I may have missed out.

    Read the article

  • OpenOffice Vs Microsoft Office 2007/2010

    - by Moody Tech
    I have been asked to summarise the pros and cons in connection with the choices between Microsoft Office Vs OpenOffice. I have a broad idea of what needs to be said. However I would like to open a discussion here and have a single place to go to when the time comes to give the summary to management. There are obvious points of contention: For me the lack of compliance with Group Policy is a major concern [Default save location/visibility of C:/Visibility of files and folders on the HDD] However I am sure that functionality and compatibility will be the prime mover. We are looking at making major savings by reducing our commitment to Microsoft licensing. So what are your experiences? What happens when there are no direct equivalents? [Word has a close match in OpenOffice, but a database solution match is not as close, neither is an Outlook [connecting to Exchange Server and downloading all calendars, shared calendars, scheduled events, for Exchange will still exist after the move to OpenSource solutions] In summary then: What do you see as: The benefits of this plan? How do you see the problems being manifest? Discuss.... Many thanks.

    Read the article

  • What steps should I take to secure Tomcat 6.x?

    - by PAS
    I am in the process of setting up an new Tomcat deployment, and want it to be as secure as possible. I have created a 'jakarta' user and have jsvc running Tomcat as a daemon. Any tips on directory permissions and such to limit access to Tomcat's files? I know I will need to remove the default webapps - docs, examples, etc... are there any best practices I should be using here? What about all the config XML files? Any tips there? Is it worth enabling the Security manager so that webapps run in a sandbox? Has anyone had experience setting this up? I have seen examples of people running two instances of Tomcat behind Apache. It seems this can be done using mod_jk or with mod_proxy... any pros/cons of either? Is it worth the trouble? In case it matters, the OS is Debian lenny. I am not using apt-get because lenny only offers tomcat 5.5 and we require 6.x. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Choosing local versus public domain name for Active Directory

    - by DSO
    What are the pros and cons of choosing a local domain name such as mycompany.local versus a publicly registered domain name such as mycompany.com (assuming that your org has registered the public name)? When would you choose one over the other? UPDATE Thanks to Zoredache and Jay for pointing me to this question, which had the most useful responses. That also led me to find this Microsoft Technet article, which states: It is best to use DNS names that are registered with an Internet authority in the Active Directory namespace. Only registered names are guaranteed to be globally unique. If another organization later registers the same DNS domain name, or if your organization merges with, acquires, or is acquired by other company that uses the same DNS names, then the two infrastructures cannot interact with one another. Note Using single label names or unregistered suffixes, such as .local, is not recommended. Combining this with mrdenny's advice, I think the right approach is to use either: Registered domain name that will never be used publicly (e.g. mycompany.org, mycompany.info, etc). Subdomain of an existing public domain name which will never be used publicly (e.g. corp.mycompany.com). The "never used publicly" part is a business decision so its probably best to get sign off from those in the company authorized to reserve domain names and subdomains. E.g. you don't want to use a registered name or subdomain that the marketing dept later wants to use for some public marketing campaign.

    Read the article

  • Git workflow for two tight-knit projects

    - by Pioul
    Two very similar projects I'm maintaining an online Markdown editor using Git as RCS (and accessorily made available on GitHub). From this web app, I've created a Chrome app: the code is the same, aside from some Chrome technicalities. I care about open sourcing these two projects. Still, the Chrome app's code being the same as the web app's except for some dull details, I've first chosen to (1) not publish the Chrome app on GitHub, and (2) not use Git to manage its code. Instead, I would manually review the web app's commits, then replicate the few changes in the Chrome app. … slightly drifting apart However, I've decided to add a feature to the Chrome app only. So, even though both codebases will remain broadly similar, they'll be diverging enough to make me reconsider the rationale behind my initial decision to not version control nor share the Chrome app's source code. Since I'm now willing to use Git to version control both apps, and that I want to share both of them on GitHub, how should I go about it? Should I use two different repositories, or one repo with two long-running branches? What would be the pros and cons of each approach in that context? What would be the easiest/fastest way to regularly "import" commits from the web app to the Chrome app, since the web app is going to remain the master branch? Is cherry-picking the only solution?

    Read the article

  • How to minimize the risk of employees spreading critical information? [closed]

    - by Industrial
    What's common sense when it comes to minimising the risk of employees spreading critical information to rivalling companies? As of today, it's clear that not even the US government and military can be sure that their data stays safely within their doors. Thereby I understand that my question probably instead should be written as "What is common sense to make it harder for employees to spread business critical information?" If anyone would want to spread information, they will find a way. That's the way life work and always has. If we make the scenario a bit more realistic by narrowing our workforce by assuming we only have regular John Does onboard and not Linux-loving sysadmins , what should be good precautions to at least make it harder for the employees to send business-critical information to the competition? As far as I can tell, there's a few obvious solutions that clearly has both pros and cons: Block services such as Dropbox and similar, preventing anyone to send gigabytes of data through the wire. Ensure that only files below a set size can be sent as email (?) Setup VLANs between departments to make it harder for kleptomaniacs and curious people to snoop around. Plug all removable media units - CD/DVD, Floppy drives and USB Make sure that no configurations to hardware can be made (?) Monitor network traffic for non-linear events (how?) What is realistic to do in a real world? How does big companies handle this? Sure, we can take the former employer to court and sue, but by then the damage has already been caused... Thanks a lot

    Read the article

  • Who should ‘own’ the Enterprise Architecture?

    - by Michael Glas
    I recently had a discussion around who should own an organization’s Enterprise Architecture. It was spawned by an article titled “Busting CIO Myths” in CIO magazine1 where the author interviewed Jeanne Ross, director of MIT's Center for Information Systems Research and co-author of books on enterprise architecture, governance and IT value.In the article Jeanne states that companies need to acknowledge that "architecture says everything about how the company is going to function, operate, and grow; the only person who can own that is the CEO". "If the CEO doesn't accept that role, there really can be no architecture."The first question that came up when talking about ownership was whether you are talking about a person, role, or organization (there are pros and cons to each, but in general, I like to assign accountability to as few people as possible). After much thought and discussion, I came to the conclusion that we were answering the wrong question. Instead of talking about ownership we were talking about responsibility and accountability, and the answer varies depending on the particular role of the organization’s Enterprise Architecture and the activities of the enterprise architect(s).Instead of looking at just who owns the architecture, think about what the person/role/organization should do. This is one possible scenario (thanks to Bob Covington): The CEO should own the Enterprise Strategy which guides the business architecture. The Business units should own the business processes and information which guide the business, application and information architectures. The CIO should own the technology, IT Governance and the management of the application and information architectures/implementations. The EA Governance Team owns the EA process.  If EA is done well, the governance team consists of both IT and the business. While there are many more roles and responsibilities than listed here, it starts to provide a clearer understanding of ‘ownership’. Now back to Jeanne’s statement that the CEO should own the architecture. If you agree with the statement about what the architecture is (and I do agree), then ultimately the CEO does need to own it. However, what we ended up with was not really ownership, but more statements around roles and responsibilities tied to aspects of the enterprise architecture. You can debate the semantics of ownership vs. responsibility and accountability, but in the end the important thing is to come to a clearer understanding that is easily communicated (and hopefully measured) around the question “Who owns the Enterprise Architecture”.The next logical step . . . create a RACI matrix that details the findings . . . but that is a step that each organization needs to do on their own as it will vary based on current EA maturity, company culture, and a variety of other factors. Who ‘owns’ the Enterprise Architecture in your organization? 1 CIO Magazine Article (Busting CIO Myths): http://www.cio.com/article/704943/Busting_CIO_Myths Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

    Read the article

  • Introducing functional programming constructs in non-functional programming languages

    - by Giorgio
    This question has been going through my mind quite a lot lately and since I haven't found a convincing answer to it I would like to know if other users of this site have thought about it as well. In the recent years, even though OOP is still the most popular programming paradigm, functional programming is getting a lot of attention. I have only used OOP languages for my work (C++ and Java) but I am trying to learn some FP in my free time because I find it very interesting. So, I started learning Haskell three years ago and Scala last summer. I plan to learn some SML and Caml as well, and to brush up my (little) knowledge of Scheme. Well, a lot of plans (too ambitious?) but I hope I will find the time to learn at least the basics of FP during the next few years. What is important for me is how functional programming works and how / whether I can use it for some real projects. I have already developed small tools in Haskell. In spite of my strong interest for FP, I find it difficult to understand why functional programming constructs are being added to languages like C#, Java, C++, and so on. As a developer interested in FP, I find it more natural to use, say, Scala or Haskell, instead of waiting for the next FP feature to be added to my favourite non-FP language. In other words, why would I want to have only some FP in my originally non-FP language instead of looking for a language that has a better support for FP? For example, why should I be interested to have lambdas in Java if I can switch to Scala where I have much more FP concepts and access all the Java libraries anyway? Similarly: why do some FP in C# instead of using F# (to my knowledge, C# and F# can work together)? Java was designed to be OO. Fine. I can do OOP in Java (and I would like to keep using Java in that way). Scala was designed to support OOP + FP. Fine: I can use a mix of OOP and FP in Scala. Haskell was designed for FP: I can do FP in Haskell. If I need to tune the performance of a particular module, I can interface Haskell with some external routines in C. But why would I want to do OOP with just some basic FP in Java? So, my main point is: why are non-functional programming languages being extended with some functional concept? Shouldn't it be more comfortable (interesting, exciting, productive) to program in a language that has been designed from the very beginning to be functional or multi-paradigm? Don't different programming paradigms integrate better in a language that was designed for it than in a language in which one paradigm was only added later? The first explanation I could think of is that, since FP is a new concept (it isn't new at all, but it is new for many developers), it needs to be introduced gradually. However, I remember my switch from imperative to OOP: when I started to program in C++ (coming from Pascal and C) I really had to rethink the way in which I was coding, and to do it pretty fast. It was not gradual. So, this does not seem to be a good explanation to me. Or can it be that many non-FP programmers are not really interested in understanding and using functional programming, but they find it practically convenient to adopt certain FP-idioms in their non-FP language? IMPORTANT NOTE Just in case (because I have seen several language wars on this site): I mentioned the languages I know better, this question is in no way meant to start comparisons between different programming languages to decide which is better / worse. Also, I am not interested in a comparison of OOP versus FP (pros and cons). The point I am interested in is to understand why FP is being introduced one bit at a time into existing languages that were not designed for it even though there exist languages that were / are specifically designed to support FP.

    Read the article

  • Functional programming constructs in non-functional programming languages

    - by Giorgio
    This question has been going through my mind quite a lot lately and since I haven't found a convincing answer to it I would like to know if other users of this site have thought about it as well. In the recent years, even though OOP is still the most popular programming paradigm, functional programming is getting a lot of attention. I have only used OOP languages for my work (C++ and Java) but I am trying to learn some FP in my free time because I find it very interesting. So, I started learning Haskell three years ago and Scala last summer. I plan to learn some SML and Caml as well, and to brush up my (little) knowledge of Scheme. Well, a lot of plans (too ambitious?) but I hope I will find the time to learn at least the basics of FP during the next few years. What is important for me is how functional programming works and how / whether I can use it for some real projects. I have already developed small tools in Haskell. In spite of my strong interest for FP, I find it difficult to understand why functional programming constructs are being added to languages like C#, Java, C++, and so on. As a developer interested in FP, I find it more natural to use, say, Scala or Haskell, instead of waiting for the next FP feature to be added to my favourite non-FP language. In other words, why would I want to have only some FP in my originally non-FP language instead of looking for a language that has a better support for FP? For example, why should I be interested to have lambdas in Java if I can switch to Scala where I have much more FP concepts and access all the Java libraries anyway? Similarly: why do some FP in C# instead of using F# (to my knowledge, C# and F# can work together)? Java was designed to be OO. Fine. I can do OOP in Java (and I would like to keep using Java in that way). Scala was designed to support OOP + FP. Fine: I can use a mix of OOP and FP in Scala. Haskell was designed for FP: I can do FP in Haskell. If I need to tune the performance of a particular module, I can interface Haskell with some external routines in C. But why would I want to do OOP with just some basic FP in Java? So, my main point is: why are non-functional programming languages being extended with some functional concept? Shouldn't it be more comfortable (interesting, exciting, productive) to program in a language that has been designed from the very beginning to be functional or multi-paradigm? Don't different programming paradigms integrate better in a language that was designed for it than in a language in which one paradigm was only added later? The first explanation I could think of is that, since FP is a new concept (it isn't new at all, but it is new for many developers), it needs to be introduced gradually. However, I remember my switch from imperative to OOP: when I started to program in C++ (coming from Pascal and C) I really had to rethink the way in which I was coding, and to do it pretty fast. It was not gradual. So, this does not seem to be a good explanation to me. Also, I asked myself if my impression is just plainly wrong due to lack of knowledge. E.g., do C# and C++11 support FP as extensively as, say, Scala or Caml do? In this case, my question would be simply non-existent. Or can it be that many non-FP programmers are not really interested in using functional programming, but they find it practically convenient to adopt certain FP-idioms in their non-FP language? IMPORTANT NOTE Just in case (because I have seen several language wars on this site): I mentioned the languages I know better, this question is in no way meant to start comparisons between different programming languages to decide which is better / worse. Also, I am not interested in a comparison of OOP versus FP (pros and cons). The point I am interested in is to understand why FP is being introduced one bit at a time into existing languages that were not designed for it even though there exist languages that were / are specifically designed to support FP.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >