Unterlagen zu einem Workshop im Rahmen des 4. Chemnitzer Linux Tages. Es wird die Installation von AFS-Servern und -Klienten demonstriert. Dabei werden wichtige Eigenschaften gezeigt und einige typische Administrations-Aufgaben erläutert.

Gemeinsamer Workshop von Universitaetsrechenzentrum und Professur Rechnernetze und verteilte Systeme der Fakultaet fuer Informatik der TU Chemnitz. Der Dynamic Traffic Shaper erlaubt ein dynamisches Bandbreiten-Management von begrenzten Netzzugängen unter Zuhilfenahme der Quality-of-Service-Möglichkeiten des Linux-Kerns. Er wird typischerweise auf einem Router, der das gemanagete lokale Netz mit dem Internet verbindet, eingesetzt. Nutzer dieses Netzes werden anhand ihrer Transfervolumina für eine gewisse Zeit in verschiedene Nutzergruppen mit unterschiedlichen Bandbreiten eingeordnet. Damit soll sichergestellt werden, dass über einen bestimmten Zeitraum nur ein festgelegtes Datenvolumen verursacht werden kann. In diesem Vortrag werden die aktuellen Entwicklungen beim Einsatz im Chemnitzer Studentennetz aufgezeigt.

Das Chemnitzer StudentenNetz (CSN) setzt seit mehreren Jahren ein System zur automatischen Regelung der Bandbreite ("DynShaper") basierend auf den Grundlagen der Diplomarbeit von Jan Horbach "Dynamische Bandbreitenbeschränkung mit QoS" ein. Aufgrund der weiterhin bestehenden Notwendigkeit zum Einsatz dieses Systems, ist es nötig die DynShaper-Software zu überarbeiten, um ihre Implementierung an die Standards des CSN anzupassen und die unvollständige Dokumentation zu ergänzen. Hauptaugenmerk liegt dabei auf der Integration des Systems in die bestehende Softwarearchitektur des CSN und der Schaffung einer modularen Implementierung zur Evaluierung anderer Berechnungsverfahren.

Starting the own business is sometimes a dream sometimes a nightmare but undoubtedly from a macro-economic perspective it is considered to be a promising concept to secure long-term economic growth and society’s welfare, at least in Germany. Strong efforts were made to support start ups and potential entrepreneurs to run their own business. A plethora of programs were launched which were supposed to facilitate the start up process – but reality is disenchanting: The published data in the 2004 GEM indicate that the idea of an entrepreneurial society in Germany is still far beyond its realization. Germany ranks 17th out of 31 GEM states in terms of “nascent entrepreneurs” and only 22nd regarding the “young entrepreneurs”. Compared to other GEM countries the German adults are considered to be more pessimistic in terms of entrepreneurial issues: The chances of establishing a successful business are evaluated lower than the years before. On the other hand the context factors which are considered to influence the start up opportunities especially in terms of governmental support and physical infrastructure were evaluated to be one of the best. Especially concerning the latter aspect strong efforts have been made to support entrepreneurs. In this context, and maybe because of - A “… post-1970s fascination with ‘high-tech’ regions worldwide” (Cooke/Leydesdorff 2006: 9), - A continuous liberalization of the world market and its impact on national production systems (which is well discussed in the context of the conversion of cooperatives), or - The dawn of the concept of national innovations systems (e.g. Lundvall 1988; Cozzens et al. 1990), For more than two decades, one promising concept of sustaining entrepreneurs was seen in the idea of incubators1 which mainly offer support in terms of infrastructure and funding opportunities. Meantime, we observe that questions emerge of how effective and efficient incubators work as one major instrument of macroentrepreneurial (Van de Veen 1995, Chiles/Meyer 2001) activities in order to facilitate start ups and to support the first steps of a new business from its start to its growth. The value of the incubator model as an effective means of technology and knowledge transfer especially from universities is continually discussed and questioned (Cunningham 1999). For example, a study run by Allen and Kahman (1985) concluded that incubators are tools for developing enterprises which create a positive environment for small businesses to succeed. Indeed, lots of studies brought up that incubators are an efficient and effective way to sustain spin-out processes and to contribute to regional development and prosperity. However, on the other hand some shortcomings are obvious: Finer and Holberton (2000) take into question the incubator model because it takes the initiative away from the start-up team. The paper refers to these observations. We assume by means of some international empirical studies that the functions of incubators are enhanced as a result of a (evolutional) learning process. On this basis we derive hypothesis about the dealing with the upcoming challenges and provide further research questions in an explorative way. Paragraph 2 introduces a three phased model of business incubators and classifies existing incubators. It will be obvious, that there is an increasing amount of functions that are allocated by incubators. Within paragraph 3 we examine recent developments from a macroeconomic perspective and contrast to this the evolution of incubators. Paragraph 4 presents two types of incubators that take these 1 In the context of this paper we primarly refer to non-profit incubators. contradictions into account and offers an alternative coping. Summarizing, we give an outlook on further research questions which will substantiate the evolutionary perspective on incubators.

Zugl.: Sankt Gallen, University, Diss., 2009.

Zugl.: Münster (Westfalen), Universiẗat, Diss., 2008.

Universiẗat, Diss.--St. Gallen, 1998.

TU Braunschweig, Diss., 2008.

Zugl.: Hamburg, Univ., Diss., 2008

Zugl.: München, Techn. Univ., Diss., 2007