Back when sysinternals was still independent, Mark provided real information with real criticism when things were wrong. Apparently, things have changed. His "analysis" here is not much more than a series of rationalizations and excuses:
"Network DPC receive processing is among the most expensive, because it includes handing packets to the TCP/IP driver, which can result in lengthy computation. The TCP/IP driver verifies each packet, determines the packet's protocol, updates the connection state, finds the receiving application, and copies the received data into the application's buffers." (emphasis mine)
The issue at hand is related to gigE NICs. Please find me a single gigE NIC that does not support TCP/IP checksum offload (even the lowly Realtek does).
His graph showing 40% CPU utilization during a file copy must be a joke or an admission of a dismally performing network stack. There are only 2 possible explanations for that number: 1. His file copy was saturating a 1gigE link - if you've saturated the link, 40% is not great but is decent. However, the test is not applicable to most people who've seen the issue. It also means there is another 60% of the CPU for processing audio - that should be plenty. 2. His file copy was nowhere near saturating the link and Vista's network stack is horribly inefficient. My experience with pervious incarnations of Windows (2K, 2K3 and XP) has shown that under ideal conditions a single file copy will max out (because of inefficiencies in CIFS but that's another story) at ~35MB/s (roughly 1/3 of a gigE link in one direction). If Vista performs at roughly the same rate, then 40% CPU for 35MB/s is terrible. No wonder there is a degradation problem that required network throttling.
Looking down further to the NDIS packet graph, it appears that it is indeed explanation 2 that is correct. Peak throughput through the system was 24.6MB/s (17215*1500). If this test was similar to the CPU test for the previous screenshot, we are seeing 40% for 24.6MB/s. It appears the system will saturate its CPU at 50MB/s half-duplex?!? That's horrible. Or Mark is showing different numbers from different tests. I'm not sure which I want to believe.
Something appears to be very wrong with the network stack in these experiments. I don't have Vista. Can anyone test this?
So you install a couple apps to stick it to the man. It's fun for about a week and then you have a fragility problem. Apple clearly isn't supporting this. Any updates/changes Apple makes will most probably wipe out anything you've modified, forcing you to re-liberate the phone and re-install your apps again not to speak of being able to restore your lost data (the equivalent of your apps/data disappearing when the battery drains).
Apple doesn't want anyone playing in their sand box, so let them play alone.
Honestly, what a load of sycophantic Jobsian voodooism.
There are quite a few examples of button free interfaces out there and this reporter only sees it when Steve Jobs allows him to see it. The Garmin Nuvi 660 has 2 physical buttons on it - a power button and a reset button in the back. Neither button is really used during normal operation - everything is through the touchscreen and this device has been available on Amazon since September 2006. Oh and it's an mp3 player, Bluetooth phone interface and radio so it's just as complex as the iPhone. TomTom seems to have a similar design philosophy with its devices.
This reporter must be living under a rock as these GPS devices are showing up everywhere.
I agree with this post completely. Comcast, formerly AT&T, has been very reliable and fast for me since 2001. I've moved several times since my initial install and recently even replaced my cable modem. In every install case, their techs came on time and were efficient and professional. The only caveat is that I always ensure they don't touch my computer. No installation is necessary beyond the installation of the modem MAC address which they do and sometimes your NIC MAC address (I'm not sure why this one is intermittent). Beyond that, every time I've called tech support for competitor price matching, service changes, a single instance of my modem not being registered correctly a few weeks after a move and the replacement of my cable modem, they had been friendly, knowledgeable and efficient.
Ideas are meaningless. They are a dime a dozen. It's execution that counts. I suspect the only part of the lawsuit that would have any merit would be if code were stolen. However, even in that case, if there was no NDA or other contract in place and the plaintiffs were free loading on Zuckerberg's time as everyone seems to agree, they probably have nothing to sue for except sour grapes.
Ants have a fully autonomous walking sub-system. Here is how you find out: 1. Arm yourself with a box cutter, straight razor, razor blade or scalpel 2. Capture your favorite back yard ant. 3. Cut off the ant's head. Be careful not to hurt anything else, don't smash any legs and don't crush any other body parts. If you don't get it right with the first try, try again on your next favorite ant. 4. Discard the head as neither you nor the ant can use it anymore. 5. Let go of the rest of the ant
The ant should now right itself and stand as if awaiting movement instructions. Some fun experiments: 1. Blow gently on the ant. It should sway in the breeze but generally remain upright. 2. Flick (or blow harder on) the ant without smashing it so that it tumbles some distance. It will right itself and patiently await further instructions. 3. Place the ant on a piece of paper, wait for it to right itself and then flip the paper over. The ant should stay attached to the paper.
I love anecdotal stories like yours because they are so often just plain wrong even though they sound very appealing. In this case, Jamaica has far more (~900%) road deaths per licensed vehicle than the good ol' US and they are close to equivalent, with the U.S. a bit higher (14%) in road deaths per capita...
Here's a random suggestion. Call up Comcast, tell them you saw a compelling offer from the local DSL provider for only $29.99 (or whatever else the price is) for a year and Comcast will match it. It took me less than 5 minutes including the hold time.
From all the other comments it appears that you should have no problem given your current expected deployment. However, have you considered future possibilities where you may have to tinker with L/GPL code. For example if you discover a bug in a GPL/LGPL library or in the kernel and need to fix it for your purposes. Do you think releasing the fix would pose a problem for you? If the answer is that you think releasing the fix is against your best interest, you should go the BSD route. Otherwise, L/GPL is probably fine.
I chuckle every time I hear about the latest Bin-Laden(TM) tape calling for the destruction of the decadent West. The very same West that created the marvels of technology his organization uses to spread its venom around the world - the portable video recorder, internal combustion engines, VCRs, the internet, PCs and all the electronics there in.
This "museum" is not much different. It uses all the spoils of modern science and technology to attempt to refute the very foundations of the science it uses to make its "point". Everything from the internal combustion engine (how else are the pilgrims going to get there?), the ticketing machines, their LCD screens, the electric motors and control electronics in their juvenile animatronic displays, the plastic of their prematurely modest Eve, the blinkin' lights and LEDs, the A/C and the power to run the whole show.
Personally, my favorite symbol of these people's intellectual bankruptcy is the tiny LED - ubiquitous and utterly taken for granted by every last one of these "believers" and yet it exists solely as a result of science and its concepts - they very concepts they so dearly seek to oppose.
Businesses are not automatically bad. Nor are businesses people. Businesses are fictions for the purposes of economic activity, not political activity. The state is concerned with the welfare of its citizens, not the welfare of its businesses. I agree that businesses are important but it is still the citizens' choice on how to be governed - if citizens choose to shoot themselves in the foot by banning chemical X and closing factory Y, so be it.
Following your logic, why are businesses not allowed to vote? They are equivalent from your perspective. No taxation without representation, right?
With regards to company contributions being contributions from shareholders/owners. While true in theory it is rarely true in practice. Very often, political contributions are not declared by companies and rarely appear in a company's annual report. I'm not sure you can even ask a company for a list of political contributions. There is also an informational gap, shareholders may not be aware of the political lobbying a company is involved in and what the repercussions are. Is that the shareholders fault? Yes, but that is the way it is, as far as I can tell.
Finally, as per "A business can't do anything outside what the people running it tell it to do". Rarely is there an evil mastermind behind an evil company. Business turns evil in the most mundane way - bureaucratically - when lots of little cogs are "just doing my job". An extreme example of this dynamic is the Milgram experiment.
Money acts as a proxy for a vote. Let's assume we have an ideal democracy where only votes affect the political process - there is no monetary influence peddling (pretend political advertising is free and every candidate/party gets equal access to the media, etc.), no bribery and everyone is honest. I think you will agree this represents an ideal democracy, right? It appears that in this system businesses have no influence on the political process since they can't vote and they can't contribute money to anyone. In the current system, because businesses can't vote, they buy politicians who cater to their proxied vote preferentially to actual voters' interests. It's a very serious accusation, I agree. At the same time, I don't see how you can call it anything else.
The political process is about citizens, by citizens, for citizens. Businesses are not citizens. Last I checked, the constitution said "We the people", not "We the people, businesses and all interested parties".
Felons are a different matter. Perhaps they shouldn't be barred from voting, I don't know enough about the topic.
Who determines if you can vote? Obviously someone is determining that already. I think the risk of the CEO facing a felony and a stiff prison term would dissuade most CEOs who have the capability to do it from doing it. In addition, representatives who knowingly accept such money are to be penalized criminally. The Supreme Court "said". That doesn't make it necessarily logical, workable or even permanent. If anything, the supreme court has often been on the wrong side of issues (slavery comes to mind) and has changed its stance as public opinion changed. In any case, to circumvent the SCOTUS you could make this constituitional. Keep in mind, I don't care how the idea is put in place (i.e. an amendment is a remote possibility), I'm only discussing the details of its mechanics. If the idea is discussed, hashed out and becomes popular enough (which I do doubt), then the SCOTUS isn't really an issue. Limiting the amount of cash per voter is important because that is exactly what ensures that graft doesn't sneak in through the back door (i.e. company gives X, X gives candidate). If you want to volunteer, that's fine (again, I would add volunteers have to be voters) - there is no inherent disparity between volunteers as there can be with money so there is nothing to regulate. Remember, you are not trying to regulate how much money/support a candidate gets. You are trying to regulate how much a voter (and non-voters in the current system) can influence the system.
It is possible that your idea of public contribution roles serving as shame sheets is good enough but I think it could allow too much room for creative accounting and interpretation.
Actually, it's very simple to thwart lobbying and corporate money. You need three basic rules: 1. If you can't vote, you can't contribute money. 2. Your contribution per election is limited to $X where X is on the order of a few thousand to perhaps tens of thousands of $ 3. One's monetary contribution right is protected equivalently to the right to vote (i.e. just as it is illegal to buy a vote or to force a vote, it is illegal to buy a contribution, to force a contribution, etc.). I think the only debatable exception to the contribution=vote equivalency is if the contribution should be anonymous or not. In any case, if your army of lawyers can find a loophole in this, well they can force votes outright for less money.
It's simple and airtight. Now you just need to find an elected body that isn't corrupt to make this law...
How long does the scanning process take? It seems to me comparing this to human face recognition capabilities is like comparing apples to oranges. Humans recognize faces with vision (3D and 2D) and can work with huge amounts of noise. These systems appear to require a still head in a vise, a huge amount of spatial data, are not vision based and I'm guessing are not very immune to noise. To answer the other posts - I don't think you'll see this any time soon because it doesn't seem to be practical for most uses.
Your ZFS system could work for SOHO where things such as uptime, disaster recovery, flexible provisioning of disks, speed and support, for instance, are not as critical. Let's look at the list: 1. uptime - so you've raided the box. What happens when the power supply fries or the CPU fails? Redundancy is typically dealt with through multi-pathing in SAN, clustering in NAS. 2. disaster recovery - your box is lost in a flood/earthquake/burglary. Did you have an efficient data remoting solution to a DR site? Putting all this data on DVDs is not practical. 3. flexible provisioning of disks - both SAN and NAS offerings have loads of features to allow provisioning and re-provisioning of storage for different usage. In the NAS world it even goes as far as integration with specific Windows apps (Exchange, SQL, etc.) 4. Speed - Think about a box that can push 1GBytes/sec of data over multiple links from a single filesystem. 5. Support - who's gonna fix the box when it fails or has bugs? Most businesses don't care to do that themselves.
There are many other additional reasons why ZFS+COTS ain't there yet. Where ZFS+COTS is potent is for upstart NAS vendors looking for an easy entry point where a lot of the heavy lifting has already been done. It can be used as a base unto which many features/functionality still need to be added. In any case, at the low end, you can buy something from Buffalo, Infrant/Netgear or even StoreVault/Netapp if you want a "high-end low-end" box.
And yet Google uses their vaunted GFS only for your web data. Google's internal data as well as revenue impacting data is stored on more traditional NAS/SAN solutions. Oops.
Things didn't change 20 years later. When I was a student, 10 years ago, I setup a similar fake login system on a Novell login/network on DOS computer farm - it would reboot the DOS machine after an attempted logon to avoid detection. I later also implemented a TSR key logger that would persist after I logged out and transmit (over IPX) keystrokes to a console I ran on another machine in the lab, pretending I was doing homework. The console could display about a dozen loggers at once and would log and filter the data to make username/password collection easier. It also had a "boss screen" in case someone would look over my shoulder.
I was so successful that I scared myself and stopped playing with it shortly after I started. I never really did anything with the logins I obtained except testing a couple to see that they worked.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone have recommendations?
Back when sysinternals was still independent, Mark provided real information with real criticism when things were wrong. Apparently, things have changed.
His "analysis" here is not much more than a series of rationalizations and excuses:
"Network DPC receive processing is among the most expensive, because it includes handing packets to the TCP/IP driver, which can result in lengthy computation. The TCP/IP driver verifies each packet, determines the packet's protocol, updates the connection state, finds the receiving application, and copies the received data into the application's buffers." (emphasis mine)
The issue at hand is related to gigE NICs. Please find me a single gigE NIC that does not support TCP/IP checksum offload (even the lowly Realtek does).
His graph showing 40% CPU utilization during a file copy must be a joke or an admission of a dismally performing network stack. There are only 2 possible explanations for that number:
1. His file copy was saturating a 1gigE link - if you've saturated the link, 40% is not great but is decent. However, the test is not applicable to most people who've seen the issue. It also means there is another 60% of the CPU for processing audio - that should be plenty.
2. His file copy was nowhere near saturating the link and Vista's network stack is horribly inefficient. My experience with pervious incarnations of Windows (2K, 2K3 and XP) has shown that under ideal conditions a single file copy will max out (because of inefficiencies in CIFS but that's another story) at ~35MB/s (roughly 1/3 of a gigE link in one direction). If Vista performs at roughly the same rate, then 40% CPU for 35MB/s is terrible. No wonder there is a degradation problem that required network throttling.
Looking down further to the NDIS packet graph, it appears that it is indeed explanation 2 that is correct. Peak throughput through the system was 24.6MB/s (17215*1500). If this test was similar to the CPU test for the previous screenshot, we are seeing 40% for 24.6MB/s. It appears the system will saturate its CPU at 50MB/s half-duplex?!? That's horrible. Or Mark is showing different numbers from different tests. I'm not sure which I want to believe.
Something appears to be very wrong with the network stack in these experiments. I don't have Vista. Can anyone test this?
So you install a couple apps to stick it to the man. It's fun for about a week and then you have a fragility problem. Apple clearly isn't supporting this. Any updates/changes Apple makes will most probably wipe out anything you've modified, forcing you to re-liberate the phone and re-install your apps again not to speak of being able to restore your lost data (the equivalent of your apps/data disappearing when the battery drains).
Apple doesn't want anyone playing in their sand box, so let them play alone.
My wife hates the new look. She loves the white iMacs. Bring back the white or I'm not allowed to upgrade... :(
Honestly, what a load of sycophantic Jobsian voodooism.
There are quite a few examples of button free interfaces out there and this reporter only sees it when Steve Jobs allows him to see it.
The Garmin Nuvi 660 has 2 physical buttons on it - a power button and a reset button in the back. Neither button is really used during normal operation - everything is through the touchscreen and this device has been available on Amazon since September 2006. Oh and it's an mp3 player, Bluetooth phone interface and radio so it's just as complex as the iPhone.
TomTom seems to have a similar design philosophy with its devices.
This reporter must be living under a rock as these GPS devices are showing up everywhere.
Ok, what part of it? How complex is it? Are we talking about data entry forms, oxygen flow meters, inventory control?
What's the biggest project you've worked on?
I agree with this post completely.
Comcast, formerly AT&T, has been very reliable and fast for me since 2001. I've moved several times since my initial install and recently even replaced my cable modem. In every install case, their techs came on time and were efficient and professional. The only caveat is that I always ensure they don't touch my computer. No installation is necessary beyond the installation of the modem MAC address which they do and sometimes your NIC MAC address (I'm not sure why this one is intermittent).
Beyond that, every time I've called tech support for competitor price matching, service changes, a single instance of my modem not being registered correctly a few weeks after a move and the replacement of my cable modem, they had been friendly, knowledgeable and efficient.
Oh, and it really is blindingly fast.
Ideas are meaningless. They are a dime a dozen. It's execution that counts. I suspect the only part of the lawsuit that would have any merit would be if code were stolen. However, even in that case, if there was no NDA or other contract in place and the plaintiffs were free loading on Zuckerberg's time as everyone seems to agree, they probably have nothing to sue for except sour grapes.
Considering how different www.connectu.com is from facebook I'm not sure I see the merits of this lawsuit...
Ants have a fully autonomous walking sub-system. Here is how you find out:
1. Arm yourself with a box cutter, straight razor, razor blade or scalpel
2. Capture your favorite back yard ant.
3. Cut off the ant's head. Be careful not to hurt anything else, don't smash any legs and don't crush any other body parts. If you don't get it right with the first try, try again on your next favorite ant.
4. Discard the head as neither you nor the ant can use it anymore.
5. Let go of the rest of the ant
The ant should now right itself and stand as if awaiting movement instructions.
Some fun experiments:
1. Blow gently on the ant. It should sway in the breeze but generally remain upright.
2. Flick (or blow harder on) the ant without smashing it so that it tumbles some distance. It will right itself and patiently await further instructions.
3. Place the ant on a piece of paper, wait for it to right itself and then flip the paper over. The ant should stay attached to the paper.
Ants are truly miniature engineering marvels.
Nobody in that video seems to be too concerned about the girl thawing and starting to rot. I'd expect it to rot in short order.
I love anecdotal stories like yours because they are so often just plain wrong even though they sound very appealing.
l earea/publications/1_771_Pa3568.pdf
In this case, Jamaica has far more (~900%) road deaths per licensed vehicle than the good ol' US and they are close to equivalent, with the U.S. a bit higher (14%) in road deaths per capita...
http://www.transport-links.org/transport_links/fi
Here's a random suggestion.
Call up Comcast, tell them you saw a compelling offer from the local DSL provider for only $29.99 (or whatever else the price is) for a year and Comcast will match it.
It took me less than 5 minutes including the hold time.
From all the other comments it appears that you should have no problem given your current expected deployment.
However, have you considered future possibilities where you may have to tinker with L/GPL code. For example if you discover a bug in a GPL/LGPL library or in the kernel and need to fix it for your purposes. Do you think releasing the fix would pose a problem for you?
If the answer is that you think releasing the fix is against your best interest, you should go the BSD route. Otherwise, L/GPL is probably fine.
I chuckle every time I hear about the latest Bin-Laden(TM) tape calling for the destruction of the decadent West. The very same West that created the marvels of technology his organization uses to spread its venom around the world - the portable video recorder, internal combustion engines, VCRs, the internet, PCs and all the electronics there in.
This "museum" is not much different. It uses all the spoils of modern science and technology to attempt to refute the very foundations of the science it uses to make its "point". Everything from the internal combustion engine (how else are the pilgrims going to get there?), the ticketing machines, their LCD screens, the electric motors and control electronics in their juvenile animatronic displays, the plastic of their prematurely modest Eve, the blinkin' lights and LEDs, the A/C and the power to run the whole show.
Personally, my favorite symbol of these people's intellectual bankruptcy is the tiny LED - ubiquitous and utterly taken for granted by every last one of these "believers" and yet it exists solely as a result of science and its concepts - they very concepts they so dearly seek to oppose.
Businesses are not automatically bad. Nor are businesses people. Businesses are fictions for the purposes of economic activity, not political activity. The state is concerned with the welfare of its citizens, not the welfare of its businesses. I agree that businesses are important but it is still the citizens' choice on how to be governed - if citizens choose to shoot themselves in the foot by banning chemical X and closing factory Y, so be it.
Following your logic, why are businesses not allowed to vote? They are equivalent from your perspective. No taxation without representation, right?
With regards to company contributions being contributions from shareholders/owners. While true in theory it is rarely true in practice. Very often, political contributions are not declared by companies and rarely appear in a company's annual report. I'm not sure you can even ask a company for a list of political contributions. There is also an informational gap, shareholders may not be aware of the political lobbying a company is involved in and what the repercussions are. Is that the shareholders fault? Yes, but that is the way it is, as far as I can tell.
Finally, as per "A business can't do anything outside what the people running it tell it to do". Rarely is there an evil mastermind behind an evil company. Business turns evil in the most mundane way - bureaucratically - when lots of little cogs are "just doing my job". An extreme example of this dynamic is the Milgram experiment.
Money acts as a proxy for a vote.
Let's assume we have an ideal democracy where only votes affect the political process - there is no monetary influence peddling (pretend political advertising is free and every candidate/party gets equal access to the media, etc.), no bribery and everyone is honest. I think you will agree this represents an ideal democracy, right?
It appears that in this system businesses have no influence on the political process since they can't vote and they can't contribute money to anyone.
In the current system, because businesses can't vote, they buy politicians who cater to their proxied vote preferentially to actual voters' interests. It's a very serious accusation, I agree. At the same time, I don't see how you can call it anything else.
The political process is about citizens, by citizens, for citizens. Businesses are not citizens. Last I checked, the constitution said "We the people", not "We the people, businesses and all interested parties".
Felons are a different matter. Perhaps they shouldn't be barred from voting, I don't know enough about the topic.
Who determines if you can vote? Obviously someone is determining that already.
I think the risk of the CEO facing a felony and a stiff prison term would dissuade most CEOs who have the capability to do it from doing it. In addition, representatives who knowingly accept such money are to be penalized criminally.
The Supreme Court "said". That doesn't make it necessarily logical, workable or even permanent. If anything, the supreme court has often been on the wrong side of issues (slavery comes to mind) and has changed its stance as public opinion changed. In any case, to circumvent the SCOTUS you could make this constituitional. Keep in mind, I don't care how the idea is put in place (i.e. an amendment is a remote possibility), I'm only discussing the details of its mechanics. If the idea is discussed, hashed out and becomes popular enough (which I do doubt), then the SCOTUS isn't really an issue.
Limiting the amount of cash per voter is important because that is exactly what ensures that graft doesn't sneak in through the back door (i.e. company gives X, X gives candidate).
If you want to volunteer, that's fine (again, I would add volunteers have to be voters) - there is no inherent disparity between volunteers as there can be with money so there is nothing to regulate. Remember, you are not trying to regulate how much money/support a candidate gets. You are trying to regulate how much a voter (and non-voters in the current system) can influence the system.
It is possible that your idea of public contribution roles serving as shame sheets is good enough but I think it could allow too much room for creative accounting and interpretation.
Actually, it's very simple to thwart lobbying and corporate money. You need three basic rules:
1. If you can't vote, you can't contribute money.
2. Your contribution per election is limited to $X where X is on the order of a few thousand to perhaps tens of thousands of $
3. One's monetary contribution right is protected equivalently to the right to vote (i.e. just as it is illegal to buy a vote or to force a vote, it is illegal to buy a contribution, to force a contribution, etc.). I think the only debatable exception to the contribution=vote equivalency is if the contribution should be anonymous or not. In any case, if your army of lawyers can find a loophole in this, well they can force votes outright for less money.
It's simple and airtight. Now you just need to find an elected body that isn't corrupt to make this law...
Very interesting. Thank you (and the previous poster as well) for the info.
How long does the scanning process take?
It seems to me comparing this to human face recognition capabilities is like comparing apples to oranges. Humans recognize faces with vision (3D and 2D) and can work with huge amounts of noise.
These systems appear to require a still head in a vise, a huge amount of spatial data, are not vision based and I'm guessing are not very immune to noise.
To answer the other posts - I don't think you'll see this any time soon because it doesn't seem to be practical for most uses.
Your ZFS system could work for SOHO where things such as uptime, disaster recovery, flexible provisioning of disks, speed and support, for instance, are not as critical. Let's look at the list:
1. uptime - so you've raided the box. What happens when the power supply fries or the CPU fails? Redundancy is typically dealt with through multi-pathing in SAN, clustering in NAS.
2. disaster recovery - your box is lost in a flood/earthquake/burglary. Did you have an efficient data remoting solution to a DR site? Putting all this data on DVDs is not practical.
3. flexible provisioning of disks - both SAN and NAS offerings have loads of features to allow provisioning and re-provisioning of storage for different usage. In the NAS world it even goes as far as integration with specific Windows apps (Exchange, SQL, etc.)
4. Speed - Think about a box that can push 1GBytes/sec of data over multiple links from a single filesystem.
5. Support - who's gonna fix the box when it fails or has bugs? Most businesses don't care to do that themselves.
There are many other additional reasons why ZFS+COTS ain't there yet. Where ZFS+COTS is potent is for upstart NAS vendors looking for an easy entry point where a lot of the heavy lifting has already been done. It can be used as a base unto which many features/functionality still need to be added.
In any case, at the low end, you can buy something from Buffalo, Infrant/Netgear or even StoreVault/Netapp if you want a "high-end low-end" box.
And yet Google uses their vaunted GFS only for your web data. Google's internal data as well as revenue impacting data is stored on more traditional NAS/SAN solutions. Oops.
Things didn't change 20 years later. When I was a student, 10 years ago, I setup a similar fake login system on a Novell login/network on DOS computer farm - it would reboot the DOS machine after an attempted logon to avoid detection.
I later also implemented a TSR key logger that would persist after I logged out and transmit (over IPX) keystrokes to a console I ran on another machine in the lab, pretending I was doing homework. The console could display about a dozen loggers at once and would log and filter the data to make username/password collection easier. It also had a "boss screen" in case someone would look over my shoulder.
I was so successful that I scared myself and stopped playing with it shortly after I started. I never really did anything with the logins I obtained except testing a couple to see that they worked.