{"id":297,"date":"2020-08-18T19:23:47","date_gmt":"2020-08-18T20:23:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.linux-tutorial.info\/?page_id=77"},"modified":"2020-08-22T19:26:40","modified_gmt":"2020-08-22T20:26:40","slug":"this-is-the-page-title-toplevel-132","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/www.linux-tutorial.info\/?page_id=297","title":{"rendered":"The Right Hardware"},"content":{"rendered":"\nThe Right Hardware<\/title>\n<p>\n<b>Purchase<\/b>\n<p>\nThere are three different ways of obtaining your workstations and servers.\nEach as their own and advantages and disadvantages. The first is to build all of\nyour machines from scratch. This can be cheaper in terms of actual cash outlay\nfor the hardware. However, you also need to consider that a lot more time\nwill be spent putting the pieces together. This can mean that the actual cost is higher.\n<p>\nThe second alternative is to buy whatever computer happens to be on sale when you need it.\nThis decision saves the time of putting together the machine as well as saves you money.\nThe downside is that you may end up with as many different configurations as you have machines.\nThis means additional administrative work to manage all of these different configurations.\n<p>\nFinally there is drawing all of your hardware from a single\nvendor. This helps standardized your machines, while at the same time shifting\na lot of the work to the vendor. In many cases you may not work with the vendor\ndirectly, but rather a distributor or reseller. In essence this has the same\nadvantages and disadvantages of working with the vendor directly.\n<p>\nWhich of these\nmethods you choose will depend a lot on your unique circumstances. Although\nbuilding machines from scratch may not be the best solution for smaller\ncompanies, you may discover a financial advantage in purchasing then all from the\nsame vendor (i.e. economies of scale). In order to get the best deal, you’ll need\nto negotiate with each vendor individually. What additional services are provided\nvary dramatically from company to company. Because it requires a fair bit of administrative\nwork, let’s look at some of the issues involved in dealing with a single vendor.\n<p>\nYou can obviously save yourself a great deal of administrative work by simply\nbuying the same brand and model from your local computer superstore. However,\nthis defeat the purpose and loses many of the benefits of going directly to\nthrough the vendor or through one of their official resellers.\n<p>\nThe first\nthing that you will be missing is having a personal contact within the company.\nAlthough it is possible to get an individual account representative when buying\nthrough a large chain, you typically do not get the same level of\npersonalized service. This is important issue in that part of what you’re\ntrying to do is to shift much of the responsibility onto your supplier. It is\npossible that the local retailer is in a position to support you directly (e..g in-house\ntech support), so it is worth investigating.\n<p>\nThere is a large variation in the sales program\nand services the vendors will provide. This not only depends upon the vendor\nthemselves, but also of the size of <i>your<\/i> company. You are obviously in a much\nbetter position to make “demands” of the vendor if you’re planning to purchase\nseveral hundred machines. However, even in smaller units you have a great deal\nof negotiating power. Remember there are dozens of computer vendors. If the\nfirst one cannot (or will not) meet your needs, the logical alternative is to go\nsomewhere else. Depending on your area, you may even find companies which will\neven build the machines for you according to your exact specifications.\n<p>\nOne thing that is often forgotten is that buying\nthe computer outright is just one alternative. Some companies will rent the\ncomputers to you. Others will lease them. Still others have programs in which\nyou can buy the computers at the end of the lease. Although this\nis slightly more expensive then buying the computers outright due to the amount\nyou need to pay in interest, you can end up saving time end money, because the\nvendor is responsible for getting the computer repaired (just like a leased car).\nDepending on your contract, the vendor may be obligated to provide you with a replacement while\nyour computer is being repaired.\n<p>\nAnother benefit in purchasing from the\nvendor is that you commonly get quantity discounts. This does not mean you’re\nrequired to buy in large number of computers at once, rather you need to buy them\nwithin a specific time frames such as six months or a year. In addition, the\nsoftware may also be part of the deal. Normally, you can’t lease the software,\nbut you can spread out the purchase price of the software over the lifetime of\nthe lease. (although this is less of an issue with Linux)\n<p>\nOne thing to look at the leasing contract is whether or not\nhardware upgrades are included in the lease. One possibility is that you can\nupgrade the hardware for a moderate payment. This keeps you up-to-date without\nmaking you go bankrupt.\n<p>\nOne important thing to keep in mind is that standard machines from brand-name companies are\noften not as standard as one might think. I once worked on a server from DEC\n(first Compaq and then HP) which had a defective drive in a mirror set. When the\nreplacement drive was sent, we discovered that it was smaller than the original\nalthough it had the exact same part number, the drive was from a different\nmanufacturer who had a slightly smaller size than the other (although both were sold\nas 4 Gb). If the drive had been bigger, it would not have been a problem. However we could\nnot simply recreate the mirrors set after adding new drive. Instead, we had to install and format\nthe new drive, copy all the data to it, and use it as the base for the new\nmirrors set. This meant that some of the space on the older drive was lost, but more importantly\nit cost us great deal of down-time.\n<p>\nThis example is not intended to demonstrate problems with brand-name\ncomputers, nor is it intended to put DEC\/Compaq\/HP in a bad light.\nInstead, it is intended to point out that there are things which you need to\nlook out for. In this case the new drive was not an adequate replacement for the\nold one. If the vendor is not willing to provide an appropriate replacement,\nthen you might want to consider looking for a new vendor.\n<p>\nThe steps to take when a machine or component needs to be replaced should be <i>formally<\/i>\ndocumented. Every <glossary>administrator<\/glossary>\nshould be in the position to replace or repair machines as\nneeded, this is not to say that every <glossary>administrator<\/glossary>\nhas the ability to get out and fix damaged cards. Instead, the administrators\nshould be a position to get the machine repaired. Your company may be different in that there\nis a special group which is responsible for repairing PCs. However the\nprincipal stays the same. As long as defined procudures are followed, they should be able\nto get the machine repaired.\n<p>\nAnother important aspect of standardization\nis defining exactly what information will be kept, where it will be stored and\nin which format the data will be in. If different groups used different formats\nto store their information, sharing becomes difficult and in many cases impossible.\nThis may be as simple as creating an database to which everyone has access, but\nyou also need to ensure that the databases are all compatible.\n<p>\nPart of this\nis determining who has what access to what information. Although everyone on\nyour help desk (if you have one) should at least be able to read this\ninformation, is not absolutely necessary that they be able to update or change\nit. If multiple people are all allowed to change this information, then the\nprocedures also need to be documented.\n<p>\nDepending on the number of users in your\ncompany, you probably will end up with several different kinds of standard\nworkstations. Each will depend on the type of work that is done on that\nmachine. For example, you might have machines that are used solely to input data\ninto databases and others which are used for your technical applications. By\ndefining a standard you are likely to find that repairing or replacing the machines\nis much easier. You know which components go into that machine so you can\nsimply order that exact same part. You know what the standard workstation is\nso you do not need to waste time trying to figure out what the replacement\nmachine should need.\n<p>\nBecause your business depends on getting work done, it\nis not unreasonable to expect timely deliveries of your computers. Therefore,\nyou should consider including penalties for late delivery in the contract. Some\nvendors can take six weeks or longer to deliver the machines. If you plan\ndelivery on a specific date and that date is not met you may be out of some money.\nWhy shouldn’t the vendor take responsibility?\n<p>\nIn one instance we were\nrepeatedly promised delivery to one of our branch offices by a specific date.\nSince the installation was being done by administrators from the head office,\nplane and hotel reservations needed to be made and work schedules needed to be\nadjusted. The day before the scheduled departure the vendor announced they would\nnot be able to deliver on time (although we had ordered six weeks earlier).\nSince we planned well enough in advances, we got a substantial discount on all\nour airline tickets. However, two days before the flight the tickets were neither\nrefundable nor could they be exchanged. This was money that was lost due to\nproblems within the vendors organization and therefore they should be\nresponsible for the damages.\n<p>\nFortunately, this contract had penalties for late delivery. The contract went\nso for as to stipulate that all machines had to be up and running for the contract\nto be considered fulfilled. For each machines that was not running the specific\npenalty would be applied. Here we had ten PCs that were already delivered, but\nthe server was not. Since this was a Windows NT domain and we needed the server to do the\ninstallation and allow the user to to work, it meant that neither the server nor any of the\nworkstations were operational. Bad planning on the part of the vendor resulted\nin a 10 fold penalty.\n<p>\nEven if you do not lose money because of non-refunded\nairline tickets, you do lose time and sometimes money when deliveries are\nnot made on time. If users are waiting for the machines, they cannot work as\neffectively as they should be able to. You have increased administrative costs\nfor the time you spend tracking down the status of the order. If the machines\nare replacements for existing computers, you may have the problem of different\nusers running different software. These problems can be compounded when you\nhave a large number of machines spread out across multiple deliveries. You have\nthe extra administrative burden of insuring everything is delivered properly.\n<p>\nIn such cases, it is in your best interest to have the contract stipulate\nwhat things cause a contract violation and what the penalty is in each case.\nAnd should also stipulate what your responsibilities are, for example,\nmaking arrangements with an <glossary>ISP<\/glossary>.\n<p>\nWhen deciding on a vendor, one thing to ask is\nhow long they will guarantee the delivery of specific equipment. That is, how long\nwill they ensure that a specific model is available. It defeats the\npurpose of standardization if you get different machines with each order. One\nvendor I have worked with changed models every three or four months. With a 6 to 8\nweek delivery time, there was a high probability that orders made two months apart\nwould have machines that were not the same model.\n<p>\nAn argument in favor of the vendor might be that this was\nnecessary in order to keep up with the technology. To some extent this is true,\nbut it makes managing standard PCs extremely difficult. If you are contractually\nobligated to purchase a specific number of machines within a specific period of\ntime it is not unreasonable to expect that be vendor is obligated to provide you\nthe same product during the lifetime of the contract. Besides, in a business, you are usually\nless concerned with being on the “bleeding edge.”\n<p>\nDue to the frequent changes\nin the computer market, it might not be possible to <i>completely<\/i> guarantee the\navailability of machines over the course of the year. Therefore, you’ll\nneed to work closely with your vendor to see that they come as close as\npossible.\n<p>\nWe next come to the magic phrase\ntotal cost of ownership (TCO). Eventually the computer will need to be\nrepaired. The question is what kind of service are you getting from the\ncomputer discount store as compared to the major vendor? Even if you are not\nbuying hundreds of computers at a time of you can still get good support from\nthe major vendors. Obviously, the quicker and more detailed the support the\nmore you are liable to pay.\n<p>\nHowever, I need to warn you here. Just because\nyou’re buying workstations or servers from one of the major vendors it does not\nmean that what you’re getting will be consistent. One prime example is the example with\nthe hard drivers mentioned above. In such cases,\nyou cannot always be sure that the components are consistent even within\na particular model. That is the description of two machines may be identical.\nHowever, they could have different motherboards, different video cards, or\ndifferent hard disks.\nThis makes mass installations of machines extremely\ndifficult. For example if you are expecting a particular video card to be in a\nmachine, the installation may not work correctly because of the different video\ncard.\n<p>\nAnother advantage of having a single\nvendor is that you have a single point of contact. If something goes wrong, for\nexample a computer breaks down, you know exactly who to call. On the other hand,\nif you have machines from different manufacturers, you need to first check to see\nher the manufacturer is of the computer in question. In addition, if you have\nwarranty or maintenance contracts, you’ll need ten separate contracts, one for\neach of the different vendors. A side benefit of having a single vendor with a\nsingle maintenance or support contract is that you build up a relationship with\nthe company. Depending on the company, this can meet to sometimes getting more\nbenefits that are then are defined in your contract.\n<p>\nOne thing that we have\nfound out is vital when ordering hardware is that the invoice should be as\ndetailed as the original order. For example, if you ordered and Adaptec 2940\nPCI <glossary>host adapter<\/glossary> , then this should be listed on the invoice.\nIn some cases I\nhave received invoices that simply stated that there was a <glossary>SCSI<\/glossary>\n<glossary>host adapter<\/glossary>.\nThis is not enough, especially later when you need to make warranty claims.\nAlso, simply stating that there is 32 MB of <glossary>RAM<\/glossary>\nis not enough. The invoice\nshould state exactly what you get like 60 ns EDO <glossary>RAM<\/glossary>.\n<p>\nSometimes buying\nhardware is more than just finding the fastest or largest for the best price.\nOften, it is a question of “piece of mind.” It’s like accident insurance. You\nknow to be careful, but sometimes accidents happen. That’s why it’s called\n“accident” insurance. In essence, you are betting against yourself. However, the\ncosts of being wrong are not worth the risk. Therefore, you pay a little extra\neach month, “just in case.” Even if you never have to use it, there is the piece\nof mind of knowing that if something were to happen, you would be covered.\n<p>\nI take this same approach to hardware. For example, I will never again put an IBM\nhard disk in any machine. In the space of about a year, I had three different IBM hard\ndisks, all with similar problems. The first was a <glossary>SCSI<\/glossary>\ndrive. It repeatedly reported read and write errors. I brought it to my dealer, who kept\nit for several days to “test” it.\nAfter three days of not being able to work, I got the same drive back with the\nreport that the dealer could not recreate the problem.\n<p>\nWhen I put it back in\nthe machine, I got the same problems. At that point the first thought was a\ndefective controller or cable, but the drive reported the same problems on a\ncompletely different machine.\n<p>\nNext, was an IBM IDE drive. I brought\nit home, pluged it in and it wasn’t recognized at all. By that time the dealer was\nclosed, so I had to wait until the next day. In this case, they could easily\nrecreate the problem, since it wasn’t recognized on their machine either. They\ngave me a new one which I installed. A couple of months later the same read and\nwrite errors started appearing as with the IBM SCSI drive (also on different machines).\n<p>\nOne day when I\nturned on the machine, the system reported that it could not find the primary\nhard disk (which was supposed to be the IBM drive). Although I could boot\nfrom a floppy and access the hard disk, I could not read anything from the root\ndirectory. When I ran CHKDSK.EXE (It was a Windows machine), I was left with about\n3 directories that were not damaged. All others were now in the root directory with names\nlike DIR00001.\n<p>\nNeedless to say, this forced me to re-install my system, dozens of\napplications and reconfigure the entire system. This cost me two days (actually\ntwo evenings) until I was back at a place where I could work effectively.\nHowever, it was more than a week until I had re-installed all the applications.\n<p>\nTwo months later, it happened again. The primary hard disk was not recognized\nand I could not access the root directory when I booted from a floppy. A\nlow-level format revealed a dozen bad tracks. Obviously after the low-level\nformat I had to re-install the system, my applications and reconfigure\neverything.\n<p>\nThis taught me three important lessons. First, even if the data is on a\ndifferent system and backed-up regularly, a <glossary>crash<\/glossary>\nof the primary hard disk means a lot of time is wasted reinstalling everything.\nTherefore, you need some\nmechanism to quickly reinstall and reconfigure your system. Some of these\ntechniques we will get to in later chapters.\n<p>\nThe second lesson I learned is to get a dealer that won’t waste my time\n“testing” the drive and then return it to me when they cannot find any problems.\nIf the problems are intermittent, the dealer should expect that the problem\ncannot be re-created so easily. In my opinion, the dealer should simply give you\na replacement and be the one who has to deal with the manufacturer. For private\ncustomers, the dealer may not be so willing to go out of his way. However, if\nyou are business spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, they <i>must<\/i> be\nwilling to make the extra effort.\n<p>\nThe last lesson is never to put an IBM drive in my machine again. IBM\n“claims” that they have a large number of drives in all sorts of machines and do\nnot have these problems. There are probably many of you, who are reading\nthis who have not have had the same experience. However, I am not willing to\ntake the risk, just like I am not willing to take the risk of driving without\ninsurance. The consequences of being wrong are two high.\n<p>\nEvery single IBM drive I have had has exhibited some kind of problems which\nput my data at risk. Even if a drive from another vendor costs $20 or ever $50\nmore than one from IBM, I am willing to pay it for the piece of mind of not\nhaving to worry about whether the system will <glossary>boot<\/glossary>\nthe next time I turn it on or that the data actually gets written to the drive.\nEven though I know people who have not have the same problems, I want the piece of\nmind.\n<p>\nAn additional advantage is the learning curve is much steeper with hardware\nfrom single vendor. This is because the construction of the machines and\ncomponents are generally the same. Again, this is not an absolute. Because the\nhardware is similar with each machine, the administrators and users do not\nneed to re-learn each time a new piece of hardware is acquired.\n<p>\nOn the other hard, sticking with a single vendor can become a\n<glossary>trap<\/glossary>.Can you\nreally wait six weeks for your machines? In one company where I worked, we stuck\nwith a single vendor who could not promise delivery in less than six weeks. The\nIS manager thought it was more beneficial to have 100{3f0b0cf5c640d99e599990c4a720721a04ec3a009b1323dd81fc335ceb655a63} standard PCs than having\na PC at all. Even though the machines differed from country to country and\nsometimes even between deliveries, it was pretty much standardized within each office.\n<p>\nIn one company they had the best of both worlds. PCs were grouped into\nclasses with similar characteristics. However, being 100{3f0b0cf5c640d99e599990c4a720721a04ec3a009b1323dd81fc335ceb655a63} identical was not as\nimportant as having a machine. Therefore, the company stuck with three vendors.\nIf the first one could not deliver fast enough, they went to the second.\n<p>\nNote that this requires a little discipline on the part of the\nadministrators. They needed to keep track of which machine had which\nconfiguration. However, with any of the asset management tools available on the\nmarket this is fairly easy.\n<p>\nGoing to three vendors also has the added advantage of being better able to\ndictate prices. Obviously, if you must have the machine within specific amount\nof time, you will probably end up paying more. However, if you are willing to\nwait a little, you might be able to cut a good deal. For example, if one vendor\nsays they can deliver in four weeks and another says they can deliver in two\nweeks, you might be able to get a good deal by waiting the extra two weeks.\nRemember: supply and demand. You are supplying the money, so you can make\ndemands.\n<p>\n<b>Repair<\/b>\n<p>\nYou might find it useful to develop a “maintenance pool” for your\nworkstations. This pool consists of complete PCs as well as copies of the\ndifferent kinds of hardware. Standardization of your machines\nmeans the you need to have fewer different models and different brands of\nhardware. This allows you to choose between replacing the entire machine or\njust individual components.\n<p>\nIn some cases it is not always necessary to have exactly matched hardware such\nas hard disks. However, with devices which require a specific driver, such\nas hard disk controllers or <glossary>network<\/glossary>\ninterface cards, it is in your best interest\nto standardize this as much as possible.\n<p>\nIf your hardware pool is designed to swap out the defective machine, repair\nit, and then return it to its original owner, you can decrease the number both\nspares you need body using removable media. Your\nmaintenance pool consists both of middle to high-end machines. Each with\ntheir own removable media drive. When you needed to exchange machines it is not\nmatter who needs the machine, but you simply take one from the shelf and stick in the\nappropriate drive.\n<p>\nThe downside of this is that it requires much greater standardization of\nhardware and there is the additional expenses of the removeable media drives. These have\na much higher cost per <glossary>megabyte<\/glossary>\nas standard hard disks. Alternatively, you\ncould simply swap out the hard disks and save on the cost.\nThe downside of this is the additional time it takes to install the harddisk.\nOn the other hand, as hardware prices continue to sink having a few extra\ncomputers on hand probably isn’t enough to make you go bankrupt.\n<p>\nIf you have a maintenance contract with your computer vendor, you should really\ninvestigate how things are handled internally weigh all in advance of your first\ncall. In some cases, the sales and support organizations may have the same\ncompany name, but are actually separate entities, which have a hard time communicating\nwith each other. I have experienced it myself that after purchasing a large\nnumber of computers from one vendor, we could not support from them,\nbecause the sales organization had not yet gotten around to submitting\nthe necessary paperwork.\n<p>\nDepending on how much the salesperson pushes the after sales service aspects\nof their company, you might want to try getting a penalty clause built and\nshould the vendor not repair or replaced the equipment within the time they\npromise. When they say that a particular service contract “guarantees” a\nspecific response time, what does this actually mean? If a tangible product\nsuch as a computer fails to meet the guarantee, you can always return it. How\ndo you return a promised level of support?\n<p>\nJust like when the computer is not delivered on time, a non-functioning\ncomputer can cost you money in terms of loss of productivity. If you don’t\npay for the computers like you promise the vendor can simply repossess it.\nWhat <i>your<\/i> options when the vendor does not meet their obligations?\nYou couldn’t go to another vendor the next time, but you\nalready lost the money. If the vendor wants your business, some kind of tangible\npenalty should be applied if they do not fulfill their obligations.\n<p>\nThe repair or replacement of defective machines is another place where you\ncan save time, at least from the users perspective. This is one of the\nstrongest motivations for having standard PCs. Should the machine go down you\ncan swap the machine in just a few minutes allowing the user to get back to\nwork. You can then repair the machine or replace defective components at your\nleisure.\n<p>\nIn some companies, assets such as computers are assigned to specific\ndepartments or even individuals. Therefore, you may need to return that\ncomputer to its original owner. However, if that’s not the case, the repaired\nmachine can then be used as a replacement the next time a computer goes down.\n<p>\nIf your workstations are standardized, it is much easier to keep a stock of\nspare parts on hand. Swapping a defective component is often as cost-effective\nas replacing entire machines, especially if you do not have the money for\nmachines which are not regularly being used.\n<p>\nRegardless of how you obtain your hardware, you should always have spares on\nhand. This is not as easy when you get your computers for major vendors, as it\nis when you build the machines yourself or order them to be build for you.\nOften times when you order from major vendors, the description may simply be\nsomething like “3.4 GB <glossary>SCSI<\/glossary>\nhard disk”. This tells you nothing about the\nmanufacturer. (Although with hard disks this is often less of a problem.)\n<p>\nHowever, with other pieces of hardware the difference becomes more critical.\nFor example, if your <glossary>network<\/glossary>\ncard fails you would probably want to replace it with the\nsame kind of card. This enables you to simply remove the old card and insert\nthe new card without having to install a new driver.\n<p>\nI need to emphasize the need to have the spares on hand as opposed to\nordering them from the vendor. Even if your vendor promises a one-day\nturnaround, this usually means one business day. Therefore, if the hard disk\ndies on Friday, you may not be able to continue work until Monday. If Monday is\na holiday, you may not get it until Tuesday. Your business week may not be the\nsame as the vendors.\n<p>\nIf your company uses standard computer configurations, there may actually\nnot be any need to have spares of individual components. Instead you might want\nto consider having spares of entire machines. In one company I worked, we had a\nfew spares for each of the different classes. When one computer failed, we\nsimply replaced it with a comparable machine. Since all of the data was stored\non the server, the only thing the user lost was local configuration settings.\nHowever, using <glossary>NIS<\/glossary>\nfor users and group names and some cases\nNFS, even that was kept to a minimum. The result was we were able to\nreplace the computer in less than 10 minutes. That meant the user was back to\nwork in 10 minutes. If we were replacing components, they can take anywhere from\na half an hour to two hours, or even longer.\n<p>\nWhich method is most effective will depends on your company. The larger the\ncompany, the more likely you would want to employ a system by which you\nreplace the entire computer. This is simply because there are more problems\noccurring in a larger company. You will need to make replacements more often.\nTherefore you will need to limit the downtime for the users.\n<p>\nIf you do decide for systems where you swap components, I would recommend\nhaving several spares of each type of components. Once again, standardization\nof hardware is vital to make the system more efficient. You must be able to swap out like\ncomponents. You do not know in advance when a component will fail and which\ncomponent it will be. What do you do if you have only a single spare and the\nsame component decides to break on two machines on the same day?\n<p>\nThe odds are generally low for such things, but how much money do you stand\nto loose if you are wrong? If you have standard machines from a single vendor\n(or just a few vendors), the vendor may have bought a whole batch of defective\nparts. Remember, they are trying to keep their costs low and do no always put in\nbrand names. The more components that are defective, the greater the likelihood\nthat even more will have problems.\n<p>\nWhat you do with the defective computer will be determined by your company’s\npolicy. In some companies, the computer is repaired and the old one is returned\nto the user. This is because there is a 1:1 assignment between computers and\nthe users. In other companies, where there is no 1:1 assignment, there is no\nneed for the old computer to be returned to a specific user. Therefore, it is\nreturned to the computer pool and waits to be used as a replacement somewhere\nelse.\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Right Hardware Purchase There are three different ways of obtaining your workstations and servers. Each as their own and advantages and disadvantages. The first is to build all of your machines from scratch. This can be cheaper in terms … <a href=\"http:\/\/www.linux-tutorial.info\/?page_id=297\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">→<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-297","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.linux-tutorial.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/297","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.linux-tutorial.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.linux-tutorial.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.linux-tutorial.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.linux-tutorial.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=297"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.linux-tutorial.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/297\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":752,"href":"http:\/\/www.linux-tutorial.info\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/297\/revisions\/752"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.linux-tutorial.info\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}