Ady Purnama

Green IT is a solution!

Information Technology use electricity as their heart. It needed to turn on the computer/server, air conditioner used to cooling, and activate the other facility 24x7 will consume so much electricity. Inefficient use of electricity will trigger worsen environment.


read more this paper

Keywords: implementation of IT, impact of IT, green technology.

1. Open terminal window
   Menu Applications > Accesories > Terminal
2. Type: sudo apt-get install virtualbox-ose
3. Type in your root password when prompted
4. Press "y" when it confirmed to continue, and wait until the installation completely finish.
   If during installation you see some error, just ignore it.
5. Restart the ubuntu.
6. Done! The default resolution will be changed into 1360x768.
   You can always change the resolution from menu System > Preferences > Monitors

Why upgrade through terminal?

Simple, it will find the latest and the most compatible version.

1. Let us mute someone from the Stream

On Google+ it is a lot easier to find friends and people to follow than any social network that has been built so far. And, with Circles, you can divided them into groups and then easily jump between the various streams of your Circles. However, there is also the big “Stream,” which aggregates all of the people you have in Circles and this is the default view you see on Google+. The one feature missing here is the ability to mute a person from the Stream (while still being able to see their updates in their Circle). You can mute individual posts from the Stream, but you can’t currently mute a person. This is badly needed so that you can stay connected to interesting people but not have the overly chatty people monopolize your Stream.

2. Show list of my +1 items from Google+

3. Fix the share and re-share issue

One of the stickiest issues Google needs to figure out is the Share functionality. If you’re familiar with Twitter, this is like a Retweet (RT). However, when you share a post on Google+, it removes all of the comments and +1s, allows you to add your own comments above the post, and then your followers can add their own plusses and comments. That can be pretty cool, except when a bunch of the people you follow all share and re-share the same post. With the approach Google has taken to sharing, there may not be an easy answer, but something will need to be done to sort this out, at least for stuff that gets shared more than 2-3 times in your stream.

4. Let us sort the stream by raw timeline

By default, the big Stream (and the Circle streams as well) are sorted by relevance and popularity, based on the number of +1 votes and shares, so that the most interesting stuff rises to the top of the Stream. However, Google should also give us the option to sort the stream based solely on timestamp, so that we can see the stuff from people who post interesting things but don’t have as many followers to buoy their posts.

5. Allow comments to be threaded

This is an issue of intense debate, but I think Google should allow threaded commenting on Google+ so that people can comment on and respond to comments, and not just the original post. That would make the threads a lot easier to follow when they get a lot of comments. And, comments on comments could be collapsed by default and users could simply click a plus sign to expand and view them. However, the threading would only need to go three layers deep to allow a response and a counterpoint.

6. Add more functionality to mobile

It’s impressive that Google had its Android app for Google+ ready to download the moment that it launched the “Field Trial” of the new service, and shortly thereafter it submitted an iPhone/iPad app to Apple for approval in the App Store. Even better, the Android app for Google+ is veyr well done. However, it’s not perfect and it could make the mobile Google+ experience a lot better by adding key functionality — e.g. the ability to +1 a comment, the ability to join a hangout, the ability to easily flip between the big stream and circle streams, etc. While they’re at it, Google should add more core functionality to its HTML app as well. That would be a great way to drive more participation and get a jump on Facebook, which still doesn’t have a great mobile experience.

7. Open it up to Google Apps users

In order to get into the Google+ beta you need a Gmail address (or a Google Account). It does not currently work for the Google Apps domains, which are business accounts where the company is using a corporate version of Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Docs, and other Google web apps. Google has stated that Google+ pages for businesses and brands are coming soon. Hopefully, Google+ for Google Apps users won’t be far behind. Since some people may end up having separate Google+ accounts for personal (Gmail) and business (Google Apps) use, Google should also consider options for letting those users log in to both accounts from different tabs in the Chrome web browser.

8. Integrate private messaging

One of the biggest things Google+ is missing compared to rivals Facebook and Twitter is the ability to send a private message to a mutual contact. Sure, there are a few workarounds and hacks that let you do it, but Google needs to make this part of the product’s primary functionality. It also wouldn’t hurt to integrate GoogleTalk (instant messaging) as well.

9. Set up verified accounts

Since there are already celebrities showing up on Google+ — and a lot of people who are impersonating celebrities — Google needs to set up something similar to Twitter’s Verified Accounts. Just do a search for “Mark Zuckerberg” or “Lady Gaga” on Google+ and take a look at how many accounts there are. There are also plenty of sneaky imposters, like the person who pretended to be Apple’s Jony Ive (the account has been deleted).

10. Show list of interactions with each user

Another useful feature that Google should add is the ability to go to a user’s profile page and see all of that person’s interactions with you — their +1s and comments on your posts, as well as your +1s and comments on their posts. This would help figure out if you should add a person to your Circles, and if so, which Circles you should put them in or add them to.

There are three main choices when it comes to buying a new server: tower, rack, or blade. Here are some of the pros and cons about each kind of server, as well as some of my experiences with each one.

Tower servers are generally on the lower end price-wise, although they can expand pretty decently and become really expensive.

Tower servers take up a lot of space and require individual monitors, keyboards, and mice or a keyboard, video, mouse (KVM) switch that allows them to be managed with a single set of equipment. In addition, cabling can be no fun, especially if you have a lot of network adapters and other I/O needs. You’ll have cables everywhere.

I don’t buy a lot of tower servers these days, but they still have a place. My most recent tower server purchase was to serve as my backup system running Microsoft Data Protection Manager 2010.

Rack servers are extremely common and make their home inside these racks along with other critical data center equipment such as backup batteries, switches, and storage arrays. Rack servers make it easy to keep things neat and orderly since most racks include cable management of some kind. However, rack servers don’t really simplify the cabling morass since you still need a lot of cabling to make everything work — it’s just neater. I once worked in a data center in which I had to deploy 42 2U Dell servers into three racks. Each server had to have dual power cables, keyboard, video, and mouse cables and six (yes, six) network cables (six colors with each color denoting a specific network). It was a tough task to keep the cabling under control, to put it mildly. Because everything was racked, there was built-in cable management that made this easier.

Like tower servers, rack servers often need KVM capability in order to be managed, although some organizations simply push a monitor cart around and connect to video and USB ports on the front of the server so that they don’t need to worry about KVM.

Rack servers are very expandable; some include 12 or more disks right in the chassis and support for four or more processors, each with multiple cores. In addition, many rack servers support large amounts of RAM, so these devices can be computing powerhouses.

There is still some truth to the fact that blade servers have expansion challenges when compared to the tower and rack-based options. For example, most tower servers have pretty significant expansion options when it comes to PCI/PCI Express slots and more disk drives. Many blade servers are limited to two to four internal hard drives, although organizations that use blade servers are likely to have shared storage of some kind backing the blade system.

Further, when it comes to I/O expansion options, blade servers are a bit limited by their lack of expansion slots. Some blade servers boast PCI or PCI Express expansion slots, but for most blade servers, expansion is achieved through the use of specially designed expansion cards. In my case, the Dell M600 and M610 blades have three mezzanines. The first mezzanine consists of dual Gigabit Ethernet adapters. The remaining mezzanines are populated based on organizational need. In my case, our blades have a second set of Gigabit Ethernet adapters housed in the second mezzanine and Fibre Channel adapters in the third. If necessary, I could also choose to use mezzanine cards with four ports in some configurations. So, although the blade server doesn’t have quite the I/O selection of other server form factors, it’s no slouch, either.

When raw computing power and server density is the key drive, blade servers meet the need. For example, in my environment, I have a 10U Dell M1000e blade chassis that can support up to 16 servers. So, each server uses the equivalent of 0.625U of rack space. On top of that, the blade chassis holds four gigabit Ethernet switches and two Fibre Channel switches, so there is additional rack space savings since I don’t need to rack mount these devices to support different connectivity options. In addition, the blade chassis has a built-in KVM switch so I don’t need to buy a third party and cable it up.

Speaking of cabling, a blade environment generally has much less of it than tower or rack environments since a lot of the connectivity is handled internally. You’ll end up with a neater server room as a result.

Another point is adding a new server consists of simply sliding it into an available slot in the chassis. There is no need to rack a new server and deal with a bunch of new cabling. This small size makes heat dissipation a challenge. Blade chassis can put out a lot of heat.

From a cost perspective, blade servers require some initial infrastructure, such as the chassis, so the upfront cost is often higher than for servers of other types.