There is probably no transmission in a US road car that can be replaced for $500 in labor at an auto shop. Your buddy or some rando may do it, but no shop will for that price. Typical shop rate is $120-$220/hour. Most shops are going to charge a minimum of 4 hours, but probably closer to 8 hours. Have you ever been under a car? The amount of "automation" required to replace a transmission is still in the arena of science fiction.
I have personally replaced a Volkswagen transmission in under an hour. I did it alone, in a driveway, with a regular floor jack, a skateboard, and a set of harbor freight wrenches.
Out of all the og Xbox games, Kung Fu Chaos provided the most fun and laughs with friends. It honestly still holds up gameplay wise. I still play it sometimes. The minigames were the best.
Exchange is actually still fairly prevalent, even among smaller companies. Although many of the smaller orgs that still have on-prem Exchange tend to have a migration plan to M365.
> Exchange is actually still fairly prevalent, even among smaller companies. Although many of the smaller orgs that still have on-prem Exchange tend to have a migration plan to M365.
and I hope they do. most of these smaller companies are sometimes sitting on really really old versions. "it works" is mostly the argument.
updating exchange sometimes can be painful. most of the time everything works, but sometimes things just break.
Let’s not ignore that if you’re a company self-hosting a highly available Exchange installation (plus backup infrastructure and maybe near-line storage solutions for mail), it’s almost certainly comprised of very expensive capital and > an FTE of labor, all which are entirely a waste of time and resources at this point.
There are vanishingly few circumstances where it makes sense for an organization to be funding deep expertise for the direct management of an Exchange environment. This has been clear for nearly a decade.
The capex to refresh that hardware is a ridiculous waste, so yeah, it wouldn’t surprise me if the people still running those setups have very aged installations (e.g. WinSrvr 2008-12), which are as great a risk as the Exchange Server software they’re running.
The gating factor is often the expertise to plan and execute a migration with minimal disruption and loss. It’s not simple, and it’s nothing like an exchange upgrade project. It’s a downright UGLY project if a company has been abusing their mail system for years (e.g. using their mail system as a document management platform since ‘99, allowing distributed PSTs, etc.). Seen it.
Just so everyone is aware, ReviOS disables the Spectre and Meltdown mitigations, virtualized based security, Windows Defender, turns off and hides the ability to use Windows Update (no future security updates), disables Bitlocker, etc. Many of the performance improvements come from disabling security mitigations/processes. Just something to be aware of. I think all of these settings can be re-enabled through their Revision Tool https://github.com/meetrevision/revision-tool.
I can imagine the benefit of having this as a reference, instead of needing to have meetings across departments and levels to negotiate who's responsible for what, in an open-ended way.
Thanks to NIST for providing a Schelling point for appropriate coordination to uphold privacy, and a scaffold of reasonable good, reasonably thorough thinking about how to appropriately handle privacy, and the general roles of everyone involved in a coherent effort inside or outside an enterprise. Raising the water line!
