ANd yet somehow the more computers a company has, the more staff working them they tend to have, and the larger the support staff keeping the computers running tends to be.
Its almost as if "computers" isnt a magical answer to complexity, or anything at all, really.
It saddens me that a comment that hits the nail on the head like yours will languish at +2 moderation; perhaps if you had blamed it entirely on the banks you might have gotten modded up.
Top is not even remotely close to procmon. It doesnt even do the same thing; you probably want to look up what procmon does before recommending replacements that have none of its functionality.
LSOF will list open files, not files that a process tried and failed to open (whether because it was not found, or because there were insufficient permissions.
RE Registry, theres not much practical difference between a program not opening because of a missing reg key, and not opening because of a missing dat / log / conf file. An example of this sort of problem on *nix would be when I was attempting to get SS5 running on pfSense, it continually errored out, and I had to reverse engineer where the various files it wanted to use had to be. Luckily it threw console errors indicating what files were missing, and I was able to create those files-- but it would have been easier with a proc-mon type tool, and certainly the lack of a registry didnt make things easier or better, just different.
Ok, that would be wonderful if true. What would you recommend as viable alternatives to the 4 programs I listed? And for the record, ps is more the equivalent to tasklist or taskmgr, and doesnt really hold a candle to process Explorer.
PS isnt really comparable in any way, shape, or form to Process Explorer, much less Process monitor.
Perhaps LSOF comes close, except that its nowhere near as granular as ProcMon. More importantly, its a lot less discoverable-- just by knowing the general terms that ProcMon uses, ANY IT person can pick it up and start using it. Top / lsof need a bit more reading to begin using them, because theyre a lot more clunky.
I also am not aware of either PS or Top being capable of showing me what a process is trying to access (for example, if its trying to read/etc/someconfig, and that file does not exist-- what utility would tell me that?)
Just as an example, in the past ive run into programs that open and then close, seemingly for no reason. The root culprit was some registry keys that the program had screwed up, and expected to be there. I discovered that with procmon by seeing what files and registry keys the process was trying to access, filtering for non-success codes, and noticing a whole bunch of attempts to read those messed up reg keys. I was able to fix it at that point. How, exactly, would you troubleshoot a similar problem on *nix?
I appreciate the disparaging "kids" and "ms monoculture" comments. Certainly its not possible that Ive been in IT for 8 years, worked with linux for 6 of them, and have wide experience with BSD, VMWare, Cisco, and a number of other CLI environments. I think there are good things about windows, so clearly im a noob.
Oh right, I forgot. Linux never OOPS's, bugchecks, or does a memory dump. Sure am glad that it never sticks you in a reboot cycle, hangs @ initramfs, has driver bugs that kill your E1000 adapter....
Linux: the only piece of software with no bugs whatsoever. Honestly I dont know why they keep updating it, since its already reached perfection.
I didnt say that people DO get indefinite incarcerations, I said that there is no grounds for objecting to one. You havent explained on what grounds one COULD object in a situation where, for instance, a petty thief has not been rehabilitated after a 10 year sentence. If the POINT of his incarceration was to rehabilitate him, how could you possibly object to an extended sentence?
Luckily we do not live in a world where rehabilitation is seen as the primary point of imprisonment, so of course we dont see the situation described.
I find windows easier to troubleshoot; the tools seem to be better. I have not heard of any good Linux alternatives for Process Explorer, Process Monitor, and Nirsoft's bluescreen analyzer, or even the built in Resource Monitor.
That is very true, but there comes a point where you either need to claim that an incredible weight of evidence needs to be dismissed as plants by a conspiracy-- and at that point you have no firm grounds on which to believe ANYTHING with any confidence-- or else you have to accept that even those you consider to be "heroes" have their own skeletons.
There is a ton to suggest that there is at least some weight to the charges against both Anakata and Assange.
The article I linked answers the question you ask:
Why do you think that the aim of rehabiliting criminals somehow implies unspecified terms of incarceration?
Basically, if the point of the incarceration isnt "what is deserved", but "is he cured", then there is no grounds for objecting to even an indefinite incarceration-- so long as it can be shown that the inmate is not yet "cured".
The only thing which allows for a discussion on "does the punishment fit the crime" is the concept of retributive punishment-- that we will punish you as far as and no further than your crime deserves.
I do not think so, no, but I dont think there should be much more provided than food and shelter. Providing entertainment seems terribly counterproductive in a penal system.
Remind me, is it called the "justice" system or the "rehabilitative" system? Historically, has the focus been on "just and deserved punishment", or "rehabilitation"? When people criticize a judgement, do they typically say "he wasnt rehabilitated" or "justice was not done"? Do they call it "ineffective", or do they call it "unjust"?
You should read CS Lewis' essay on The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment (warning, PDF). I think he makes an excellent case why straying away from a "retributive" or "punitive" justice system is about the least humane and most dangerous thing you could do. Do you really want the government deciding when your prison term is up / "justice has been served" based on whether they think you have been rehabilitated or not?
In the same way that eating your dinner merely "postpones the inevitable", sure. You might as well just give me your food, actually, since theres no point to you eating it-- youre going to die eventually anyways.
Hes not in jail because of TBP in this case, but for hacking a bank and an IT firm, and then leaking a ton of customer data. I know this is slashdot and all, but its right there in the summary. Lets at least pretend to look informed before spouting off.
Theyre not arresting him for pirate bay, but for all the other crap he does while showing contempt for the law. Right from the summary:
for data breaches and aggravated fraud
From the article:
Svartholm Warg was convicted by the Nacka District Court after a hacking attack against Swedish IT firm Logica through which he gained unauthorized access to the personal data of thousands of people, which he then published on the net.
The conviction was also for hacking into the mainframe of Nordea, Scandinavia's biggest bank.
Please tell me how much of a miscarriage of justice it is that this guy be punished.
And you get modded +5 insightful for providing zero insight into this discussion! You didnt even read the summary or article! The mind boggles.
As usual, people on slashdot demonstrate their willingness to overlook anything-- even attempts to steal millions from banks in a hacking attempt-- if its done by heroes of the geek community.
Accused of rape? Doesnt matter, you will have defenders galore so long as you first endear yourself to the geek community. Accused of fraud / hacking? Doesnt matter, so long as youre pro-P2P.
Indeed, we do have a problem with justice, but its not the one you think it is.
According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. When this theory is combined, as frequently happens, with the belief that all crime is more or less pathological, the idea of mending tails off into that of healing or curing and punishment becomes therapeutic. Thus it appears at first sight that we have passed from the harsh and self-righteous notion of giving the wicked their deserts to the charitable and enlightened one of tending the psychologically sick. What could be more amiable? One little point which is taken for granted in this theory needs, however, to be made explicit. The things done to the criminal, even if they are called cures, will be just as compulsory as they were in the old days when we called them punishments. If a tendency to steal can be cured by psychotherapy, the thief will no doubt be forced to undergo the treatment. Otherwise, society cannot continue.
My contention is that this doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.
The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust. I do not here contend that the question ‘Is it deserved?’ is the only one we can reasonably ask about a punishment. We may very properly ask whether it is likely to deter others and to reform the criminal. But neither of these two last questions is a question about justice. There is no sense in talking about a ‘just deterrent’ or a ‘just cure’. We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case’.
Slashdot Mirror
So sometimes I ask myself whether this OS is really ready for prime time,
Of course it is and that wasnt my point.
It just bugs me whenever people gush about how X is the perfect OS with no flaws. That doesnt exist, and never will.
ANd yet somehow the more computers a company has, the more staff working them they tend to have, and the larger the support staff keeping the computers running tends to be.
Its almost as if "computers" isnt a magical answer to complexity, or anything at all, really.
It saddens me that a comment that hits the nail on the head like yours will languish at +2 moderation; perhaps if you had blamed it entirely on the banks you might have gotten modded up.
It works without issue.
Lets not wax TOO poetic about it. Wasnt there an issue in 8.1 which caused reboot loops if u had a USB keyboard plugged in?
And of course setting blind quotas has never resulted in unintended, unwanted, and generally counterproductive consequences.
Top is not even remotely close to procmon. It doesnt even do the same thing; you probably want to look up what procmon does before recommending replacements that have none of its functionality.
LSOF will list open files, not files that a process tried and failed to open (whether because it was not found, or because there were insufficient permissions.
RE Registry, theres not much practical difference between a program not opening because of a missing reg key, and not opening because of a missing dat / log / conf file. An example of this sort of problem on *nix would be when I was attempting to get SS5 running on pfSense, it continually errored out, and I had to reverse engineer where the various files it wanted to use had to be. Luckily it threw console errors indicating what files were missing, and I was able to create those files-- but it would have been easier with a proc-mon type tool, and certainly the lack of a registry didnt make things easier or better, just different.
Specifically, Mr. Trenk has recently tried , to conclusion , bid litigation involving over $100 million.
Do I win anything?
Ok, that would be wonderful if true. What would you recommend as viable alternatives to the 4 programs I listed? And for the record, ps is more the equivalent to tasklist or taskmgr, and doesnt really hold a candle to process Explorer.
PS isnt really comparable in any way, shape, or form to Process Explorer, much less Process monitor.
Perhaps LSOF comes close, except that its nowhere near as granular as ProcMon. More importantly, its a lot less discoverable-- just by knowing the general terms that ProcMon uses, ANY IT person can pick it up and start using it. Top / lsof need a bit more reading to begin using them, because theyre a lot more clunky.
I also am not aware of either PS or Top being capable of showing me what a process is trying to access (for example, if its trying to read /etc/someconfig, and that file does not exist-- what utility would tell me that?)
Just as an example, in the past ive run into programs that open and then close, seemingly for no reason. The root culprit was some registry keys that the program had screwed up, and expected to be there. I discovered that with procmon by seeing what files and registry keys the process was trying to access, filtering for non-success codes, and noticing a whole bunch of attempts to read those messed up reg keys. I was able to fix it at that point. How, exactly, would you troubleshoot a similar problem on *nix?
I appreciate the disparaging "kids" and "ms monoculture" comments. Certainly its not possible that Ive been in IT for 8 years, worked with linux for 6 of them, and have wide experience with BSD, VMWare, Cisco, and a number of other CLI environments. I think there are good things about windows, so clearly im a noob.
Oh right, I forgot. Linux never OOPS's, bugchecks, or does a memory dump. Sure am glad that it never sticks you in a reboot cycle, hangs @ initramfs, has driver bugs that kill your E1000 adapter....
Linux: the only piece of software with no bugs whatsoever. Honestly I dont know why they keep updating it, since its already reached perfection.
I didnt say that people DO get indefinite incarcerations, I said that there is no grounds for objecting to one. You havent explained on what grounds one COULD object in a situation where, for instance, a petty thief has not been rehabilitated after a 10 year sentence. If the POINT of his incarceration was to rehabilitate him, how could you possibly object to an extended sentence?
Luckily we do not live in a world where rehabilitation is seen as the primary point of imprisonment, so of course we dont see the situation described.
I find windows easier to troubleshoot; the tools seem to be better. I have not heard of any good Linux alternatives for Process Explorer, Process Monitor, and Nirsoft's bluescreen analyzer, or even the built in Resource Monitor.
That is very true, but there comes a point where you either need to claim that an incredible weight of evidence needs to be dismissed as plants by a conspiracy-- and at that point you have no firm grounds on which to believe ANYTHING with any confidence-- or else you have to accept that even those you consider to be "heroes" have their own skeletons.
There is a ton to suggest that there is at least some weight to the charges against both Anakata and Assange.
The article I linked answers the question you ask:
Why do you think that the aim of rehabiliting criminals somehow implies unspecified terms of incarceration?
Basically, if the point of the incarceration isnt "what is deserved", but "is he cured", then there is no grounds for objecting to even an indefinite incarceration-- so long as it can be shown that the inmate is not yet "cured".
The only thing which allows for a discussion on "does the punishment fit the crime" is the concept of retributive punishment-- that we will punish you as far as and no further than your crime deserves.
I do not think so, no, but I dont think there should be much more provided than food and shelter. Providing entertainment seems terribly counterproductive in a penal system.
Remind me, is it called the "justice" system or the "rehabilitative" system? Historically, has the focus been on "just and deserved punishment", or "rehabilitation"? When people criticize a judgement, do they typically say "he wasnt rehabilitated" or "justice was not done"? Do they call it "ineffective", or do they call it "unjust"?
You should read CS Lewis' essay on The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment (warning, PDF). I think he makes an excellent case why straying away from a "retributive" or "punitive" justice system is about the least humane and most dangerous thing you could do. Do you really want the government deciding when your prison term is up / "justice has been served" based on whether they think you have been rehabilitated or not?
postponed the inevitable
In the same way that eating your dinner merely "postpones the inevitable", sure. You might as well just give me your food, actually, since theres no point to you eating it-- youre going to die eventually anyways.
company that that profiteers
All companies that arent "non-profit" "profiteer". If they dont, they go out of business. I absolutely LOVE the appeal to emotion, however.
Do tell? What sort of poisoning has occurred?
Really, the thing that makes me saddest isnt the comments on slashdot, its their moderation. How exactly is hysterical fearmongering insightful?
Hes not in jail because of TBP in this case, but for hacking a bank and an IT firm, and then leaking a ton of customer data. I know this is slashdot and all, but its right there in the summary. Lets at least pretend to look informed before spouting off.
Theyre not arresting him for pirate bay, but for all the other crap he does while showing contempt for the law.
Right from the summary:
for data breaches and aggravated fraud
From the article:
Svartholm Warg was convicted by the Nacka District Court after a hacking attack against Swedish IT firm Logica through which he gained unauthorized access to the personal data of thousands of people, which he then published on the net.
The conviction was also for hacking into the mainframe of Nordea, Scandinavia's biggest bank.
Please tell me how much of a miscarriage of justice it is that this guy be punished.
And you get modded +5 insightful for providing zero insight into this discussion! You didnt even read the summary or article! The mind boggles.
As usual, people on slashdot demonstrate their willingness to overlook anything-- even attempts to steal millions from banks in a hacking attempt-- if its done by heroes of the geek community.
Accused of rape? Doesnt matter, you will have defenders galore so long as you first endear yourself to the geek community.
Accused of fraud / hacking? Doesnt matter, so long as youre pro-P2P.
Indeed, we do have a problem with justice, but its not the one you think it is.
The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. When this theory is combined, as frequently happens, with the belief that all crime is more or less pathological, the idea of mending tails off into that of healing or curing and punishment becomes therapeutic. Thus it appears at first sight that we have passed from the harsh and self-righteous notion of giving the wicked their deserts to the charitable and enlightened one of tending the psychologically sick. What could be more amiable? One little point which is taken for granted in this theory needs, however, to be made explicit. The things done to the criminal, even if they are called cures, will be just as compulsory as they were in the old days when we called them punishments. If a tendency to steal can be cured by psychotherapy, the thief will no doubt be forced to undergo the treatment. Otherwise, society cannot continue.
My contention is that this doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.
The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust. I do not here contend that the question ‘Is it deserved?’ is the only one we can reasonably ask about a punishment. We may very properly ask whether it is likely to deter others and to reform the criminal. But neither of these two last questions is a question about justice. There is no sense in talking about a ‘just deterrent’ or a ‘just cure’. We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case’.
Jail is useless if its not punitive.