- Inconsistent extfs archive for free#
- Inconsistent extfs archive mac os x#
- Inconsistent extfs archive install#
- Inconsistent extfs archive pro#
You're in for a treat, I can assure you it won't be boring in the slightest. Conversely, try setting up an FTP server on Windows. It's not boring in the "it runs Final Fantasy 14 out of the box" way, but it was never intended to. Even BSD has more interesting stuff going on. For the people who need Linux, it truly is a terribly boring OS. You can run pretty much any server software, combination of containers/VMs, or even a selection of desktop apps that don't break through WINE.
Inconsistent extfs archive install#
You can install it on any system and have a baseline expectation of functionality.
Inconsistent extfs archive for free#
You can license it for free and use it for literally anything you want. You can administrate it with a small collection of easy-to-learn, useful tools. For server stuff though, it's as boring as it gets. It's quite usable on the desktop, but the money/users/interest will always stay on the server side of things. People (understandably) give Linux flak when comparing it to desktop operating systems because. I don't know whether Oracle still uses that setup, but (if the company is large enough to sustain it) that could be an approach to avoid some of this I used to work for Oracle, and while I was there Oracle had a whole separate IT department just for the engineering/R&D org, while the main IT department serviced the rest of the business (sales/support/finance/legal/HR/etc).
Developers are more likely to have configured their environment in custom ways which will cause IT's buggy script to play up and cause problems Maybe software like Jamf isn't inherently a problem, but it can encourage IT departments with that kind of culture to do more things to irritate developers (like automatically run buggy scripts on developer laptops without any notice or easy visibility into what those scripts are and what they do), which without that kind of management software available to them, they would have been less likely to try to do. A locked-down UI which doesn't let you change any settings may be the right approach for non-technical users, developers can find it infuriating that you won't let them try to solve their problem themselves, and instead force them to talk to a helpdesk who don't understand it either and want to follow some script ("Have you tried rebooting?"), before they let you talk to someone who actually understands what is going on Non-technical users need a lot of handholding – an approach which can be irritating to the technically advanced. They often don't have a good appreciation of the more demanding needs of technical teams. I think part of the problem is that many IT departments have a culture which focuses on the needs of less-technical users. there was likely significantly more nuance involved than what I detailed above.
Inconsistent extfs archive mac os x#
So Shake (which was still primarily a Linux product) became a liability for Apple, because continued support of it didn't align with Apple corporate's priorities - because it wasn't really a Mac OS X product that would increase Mac OS X's platform value as long as they had to also support Linux/IRIX.
Inconsistent extfs archive pro#
Apple tried to lure then with increasingly lower prices for the MacOS version of Shake, but it had few takers, even with new features and Final Cut Pro integration. Production studio workflows built on Shake were all Linux-based, and there was no way that was going to change, regardless of the price. If this MO is a non-negotiable, then Apple really made the mistake when they acquired Shake. In this way they hope to strengthen their own desktop platform, much like Office strengthened Windows for many years. Apple's MO with product acquisitions has always been to port them to MacOS if necessary, then kill off support for other platforms.
0 kommentar(er)
