According to one of the the articles, he broke the encryption on the passwords
When was the last time you saw a FTP-server that allowed to download its own password-file ? 1990 ?
This is ridiculous - if I'd encounter one, I'd ask myself if it was a honeypot.
Also, the various journalists' view (and the subsequent picture created by them for their readers) of "hacking", "cracking", "security" etc. is sometimes so distorted, so far-off from the reality of the people closer involved with the subject that reading a mainstream-press article about it is often only marginally better than just making-up the facts from slashdot-postings !
Having gone to FreeBSD.org and looked at the ports, it looks like they've updated them finally so that I'll be able to get the Linux-HA FreeBSD Port completed.
You can also go to Freshports where you can get a nice view of the cvs-commits to the ports-tree.
Have you tried contacting the maintainer for the relevant autoconf/automake port with your problems in the past ?
The only problem is that the tool chain requires versions that are NOT the standard ported versions (Automake and autoconf if my memory serves me right).
FreeBSD doesn't come with autoconf/make at all (and bsd-make instead of gmake).These are in the ports-tree and there are even different versions for the first two.
I'm not a toolchain expert, but you might want to look into this.
Also, one reason why autoconf/automake sometimes break on FreeBSD is the fact that people hard-code certain Linux-isms into their config-files that subsequently fall over when run under FreeBSD...
If my boss asks me the software I recommend, will he be more keen to something called Exchange or to something called Kroupware?
Hey - it's your boss, not ours. Is that question rethorical ?
And besides: you're free to use sed(1) on the sources to remove all references to "Kroupware" and change them into something that Jimm Buzzz from marketing has thought out for you.
It was reported that PERL often broke make world.
I didn't have this happen to myself, but smarter people than myself complained, so I guess it had some substance...
But converting utilities into C code is just completely the wrong direction.
The effort was very minimal, IIRC. adduser(8) was probably the only bigger one.
I can install PERL5.6 or PERL5.8 without fearing to ruin the base-OS.
For me, this is a big ++
think Perl is a pretty awful language, but not including it in FreeBSD strikes me as a stupid decision
It's not in the base distribution.
That means that it is an additional package that is installed more or less automatically during install (unless you don't install any packages, eg. because you want PERL5.8 and install that later). It's not in the base-system because it makes "make world" more difficult.
What is BSD doing instead? Implementing all utilities in C?
Indeed. The base system works without PERL (beginning with 5.0-REL).
If you think about it, it's not a bad system design decission to try to make the base-install leaner.
I wouldn't be surprised if part of the decision was based on giving the contract to a German company over an American one.
This is probably true.
But it's also a question of perception.
Ask yourself why MSFT is viewed as an American company though their German HQ is maybe 30km from the inner city of Munich.
But this happens a lot in US and elsewhere vice-vera (SAP vs. Oracle/PeopleSoft, GM vs. Volkswagen - you name them) - one tries to keep a national identity in a globalized world.
Who's to blame ?
Als (the article mentions this) MSFT's actions resulted in a kind of pressure on the decision-makers (I don't know if they actually wanted to do that) - but in Germany, the usual reaction from town-councils to such pressure (even more so from corporations) is to vote against the company, just to show them who has the say;-)
All this for getting suckered in by an obvious troll and getting called a wanker as a result. Earth to Fyodor: grow the fuck up. Sheesh, what a sociopathic crybaby.
I've not seen the pictures he's taken of your desktop but I don't think you've got much to complain (at least morally, and the legal side has allready been covered: not punishable)
You had no right to reveal the private mail(s) he sent to you in the assumption that you are a girl. Doing so (even more so with a highly skilled security-professional...) just asked for trouble.
And trouble you got. And now, you're envious that he got a front-page story and a big interview (a very good interview with good questions and good answers).
All that babbling about "professionalism" and the security of the tools because he might have "crossed the line" is just bullshit with which you want to conceal your envy.
If you were really concerned about such things, you wouldn't waste time here as a FTT (full time troll).
Shared Source does not permit a participant to compile it
I've read an interview with some MS-rep that said that they are now offering "build-kits" so one can more-or-less build one's own release of W2K.
I've got no source to back up this claim, though.
and see if it makes the same binaries his install CD's have.
You'd also need the source of the compiler anyway...
My department is 100% Microsoft. We have hundreds of Word macros that talk to our Microsoft SQL server etc. If we wanted to switch it would take use several years to phase out Microsoft. It would be ugly. Worth it in the long run in my opinion but ugly getting there.
Geez. I guess that makes arguing and bargaining with your MSFT sales-rep really easy.
You can be certain that he has allready calculated the maximum price of Office for your site before a switch becomes actually financially viable.
Oh. And don't forget to run every BSA-audit.;-)
This decision must still be finally confirmed by the city council, the original Heise Newsticker article does mention this, though.
The ruling SPD-party does not have a majority in there, but it should not be a big problem to get enough votes from other parties.
My experience so far has been that our clients want these functions, but are unwilling to commit the time or money (or more importantly, discipline!) required to delivery these effectively.
Of course not. The reality today is that maintaining intranet-pages is about as popular as going to the dentist.
Why ? You don't get anything out of it, generally because everybody takes it for granted anyway and nobody wants to commit content.
And your boss will think you don't do any "real work" because you just update webpages...
HTML might be the best solution if the organisation is unwilling to think things through, but i'm afraid that we'll scrap a multi-million dollar system to have the buisness return and complain that their options are limited with HTML a year after they've forced a strategy change.
But: don't you know that half of the whole so called "consulting business" works after this model ?
The people who proposed pure HTML as a solution to your problems will undoubtedly return in some months and show your bosses a way to save big $$$ by implementing the latest and greatest CMS-offering from your favourite vendor.
:-))
The version I use here (TP5 build 395 or so) on FreeBSD (linux-ABI) can't do SMTP-AUTH with TLS without me having to save the password in the configuration.
Obviously, that's not what I want.
Is the RELEASE better in this respect?
A good question. After my dual p2-450 HP Kayak died, and I had the need to buy a new system, I eventually bought another Dual CPU box (DIY Socket 604, 2.4 GHz), mostly because I intend to make heavy use of vmware (workstation & gsx-server).
I must say that one reason to go SMP was that I wanted a system with little or none of the "BS"-parts that seem to end up on consumer motherboards (RealTec-NICs, max 1.5 GB RAM, 6 USB-slots, Firewire etc - you name it) - and which I have no real use for but still have to pay.
Instead, I wanted quality.
I must say, that this is probably the last Dual-System on my desktop for the simple reason that they are god-damned noisy !
Even if you buy a quitend case and a PSU with temperature-controlled fan(s) (which I did), it is still too noisy for me (and the Kayak wasn't silent, either).
Before I put the whole box on one sheet of that air-filled foil that they send HDs etc. to you, the 460W PSU made the whole desk vibrate...
So, if you intend to buy a dual-CPU system, make sure your house/apartement has a place where you can put it, close the door and work via XDM etc. on it (perhaps on a VIA MINI-ITX barebone-ish fan-less PC...), because once I move from my room to a larger apartement, that's sure what I'm going to do !
cheers,
Rainer
Isn't NTFS a journaling FS, too ?
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
Not that having to run Longhorn on my desktop is a prospect I'm looking forward to, but still: NTFS has been there for 10 years or so. And it's jounaling.
You should have got suspicious about their name, at least;-)
But I'm also guilty - my ISP has some RBLed blocks because of a spammer. And I'm trying to get new IPs. You should be able to ask what IP-addresses you will get in advance and check them with www.spews.org and the rest of these sites...
Thing is, I don't want to *learn* to use my computer, I just want to use it. See the difference?
Yeah. Just like those who "....just want to drive a car" instead of learning to drive it properly and adhere to the traffic rules.
I actually wanted to say "learn how to use...".
Would you hand out driving licences to people who say they "just need to know how to drive to work and back home" and thus only need to know the traffic-signs and -rules that occur on the way thereto ?
I wouldn't and thankfully the current legislation here prevents that;-)
Hehe, some friends of mine in WTC were saved only because they had sent a debugging version of their code to a customer
Bah. Even Practical Unix & Internet Security (2nd ed.) mentioned the first WTC-bombing (1993 ?) and how important off-site backups were.
Alas, I remember reading stories about people having "off-site" backups as off-site as the other of the two towers....
You can't move your data offsite on HDs, first of all. Ask those shops in the WTC. Some learned it the hard way. "Offsite" really means "some km away".
Then, even if you moved IDE-drives out of the building, they are far too easy to break. Just remember the Jaz-drives from Iomega. Crap. I can drop a tape to the floor dozens of times and still be able to read it. Do that with a HD and compare. And don't say "I'm not going to drop it ever". Because that's BS.
And, as other people have allready pointed out, if your controller breaks and ruins the disks, you're hosed, too.
Tapes may be expensive compared to IDE HDs, but you get what you pay for.
Libraries are expensive, but either you need to have the data backuped (because of whatever reasons - laws, business continuity etc. pp.) reliably and be restoreable within a certain timeframe and with a certain confidence, then you have to shell out the bucks for the tape-robot. Or you decide that the data you "own" is just not worth the effort and go for a pseudo-backup with IDE-RAID etc. that might get destroyed when the PSU in your backup-server decides to explode and take the drives and all with it.
I could be running a UNIX OS from 1995 and keep it patched and secure, just as long as I can compile new versions of services on it.
In business-critical systems, it's important not to introduce any new code to a stable system.
When you get a patch from SUN for Solaris 2.7, it patches the bug, but keeps the external interface of the program or library identical.
Thus, old programs that rely on it don't break, mustn't break.
If I'd want to run a FreeBSD from 1996, I'd have to backport some/most of the patches to 2.2.x...
After all, you could upgrade NT4 to 2000, with your point of view.
My point is that the whole debate is about an OS from 1996 or so. If I compare, I must compare it with something that was available then and is still available now - and supported.
FYI: I run BSD & Linux @ home on low-end hardware and no Windoze. But I don't run a BSD from 1996. Do you ?
What other operating systems from back then are still "supported" now ?
Solaris 2.6 maybe ? (Rapidly approaching EOL/EOS)
What else ?
Point is: NT4 is so old (and so BS), I can see why they want it to die (apart from the reason that they want to sell the new OSs)
Slashdot Mirror
When was the last time you saw a FTP-server that allowed to download its own password-file ? 1990 ?
This is ridiculous - if I'd encounter one, I'd ask myself if it was a honeypot.
Also, the various journalists' view (and the subsequent picture created by them for their readers) of "hacking", "cracking", "security" etc. is sometimes so distorted, so far-off from the reality of the people closer involved with the subject that reading a mainstream-press article about it is often only marginally better than just making-up the facts from slashdot-postings !
Rainer
You can also go to Freshports where you can get a nice view of the cvs-commits to the ports-tree.
Have you tried contacting the maintainer for the relevant autoconf/automake port with your problems in the past ?
cheers,
Rainer
FreeBSD doesn't come with autoconf/make at all (and bsd-make instead of gmake).These are in the ports-tree and there are even different versions for the first two.
I'm not a toolchain expert, but you might want to look into this.
Also, one reason why autoconf/automake sometimes break on FreeBSD is the fact that people hard-code certain Linux-isms into their config-files that subsequently fall over when run under FreeBSD...
Hey - it's your boss, not ours. Is that question rethorical ?
And besides: you're free to use sed(1) on the sources to remove all references to "Kroupware" and change them into something that Jimm Buzzz from marketing has thought out for you.
Rainer
It was reported that PERL often broke make world.
I didn't have this happen to myself, but smarter people than myself complained, so I guess it had some substance...
But converting utilities into C code is just completely the wrong direction.
The effort was very minimal, IIRC. adduser(8) was probably the only bigger one.
I can install PERL5.6 or PERL5.8 without fearing to ruin the base-OS.
For me, this is a big ++
It's not in the base distribution.
That means that it is an additional package that is installed more or less automatically during install (unless you don't install any packages, eg. because you want PERL5.8 and install that later). It's not in the base-system because it makes "make world" more difficult.
What is BSD doing instead? Implementing all utilities in C?
Indeed. The base system works without PERL (beginning with 5.0-REL).
If you think about it, it's not a bad system design decission to try to make the base-install leaner.
Rainer
This is probably true.
But it's also a question of perception.
Ask yourself why MSFT is viewed as an American company though their German HQ is maybe 30km from the inner city of Munich.
But this happens a lot in US and elsewhere vice-vera (SAP vs. Oracle/PeopleSoft, GM vs. Volkswagen - you name them) - one tries to keep a national identity in a globalized world.
Who's to blame ? ;-)
Als (the article mentions this) MSFT's actions resulted in a kind of pressure on the decision-makers (I don't know if they actually wanted to do that) - but in Germany, the usual reaction from town-councils to such pressure (even more so from corporations) is to vote against the company, just to show them who has the say
I've not seen the pictures he's taken of your desktop but I don't think you've got much to complain (at least morally, and the legal side has allready been covered: not punishable)
You had no right to reveal the private mail(s) he sent to you in the assumption that you are a girl. Doing so (even more so with a highly skilled security-professional...) just asked for trouble.
And trouble you got. And now, you're envious that he got a front-page story and a big interview (a very good interview with good questions and good answers).
All that babbling about "professionalism" and the security of the tools because he might have "crossed the line" is just bullshit with which you want to conceal your envy.
If you were really concerned about such things, you wouldn't waste time here as a FTT (full time troll).
Rainer
I've read an interview with some MS-rep that said that they are now offering "build-kits" so one can more-or-less build one's own release of W2K.
I've got no source to back up this claim, though.
and see if it makes the same binaries his install CD's have.
You'd also need the source of the compiler anyway...
Rainer
Geez. I guess that makes arguing and bargaining with your MSFT sales-rep really easy. ;-)
You can be certain that he has allready calculated the maximum price of Office for your site before a switch becomes actually financially viable.
Oh. And don't forget to run every BSA-audit.
Rainer
The ruling SPD-party does not have a majority in there, but it should not be a big problem to get enough votes from other parties.
Rainer
Of course not. The reality today is that maintaining intranet-pages is about as popular as going to the dentist.
Why ? You don't get anything out of it, generally because everybody takes it for granted anyway and nobody wants to commit content.
And your boss will think you don't do any "real work" because you just update webpages...
HTML might be the best solution if the organisation is unwilling to think things through, but i'm afraid that we'll scrap a multi-million dollar system to have the buisness return and complain that their options are limited with HTML a year after they've forced a strategy change.
But: don't you know that half of the whole so called "consulting business" works after this model ?
:-))
The people who proposed pure HTML as a solution to your problems will undoubtedly return in some months and show your bosses a way to save big $$$ by implementing the latest and greatest CMS-offering from your favourite vendor.
Rainer
Obviously, that's not what I want.
Is the RELEASE better in this respect?
Rainer
A good question. After my dual p2-450 HP Kayak died, and I had the need to buy a new system, I eventually bought another Dual CPU box (DIY Socket 604, 2.4 GHz), mostly because I intend to make heavy use of vmware (workstation & gsx-server).
I must say that one reason to go SMP was that I wanted a system with little or none of the "BS"-parts that seem to end up on consumer motherboards (RealTec-NICs, max 1.5 GB RAM, 6 USB-slots, Firewire etc - you name it) - and which I have no real use for but still have to pay.
Instead, I wanted quality.
I must say, that this is probably the last Dual-System on my desktop for the simple reason that they are god-damned noisy !
Even if you buy a quitend case and a PSU with temperature-controlled fan(s) (which I did), it is still too noisy for me (and the Kayak wasn't silent, either).
Before I put the whole box on one sheet of that air-filled foil that they send HDs etc. to you, the 460W PSU made the whole desk vibrate...
So, if you intend to buy a dual-CPU system, make sure your house/apartement has a place where you can put it, close the door and work via XDM etc. on it (perhaps on a VIA MINI-ITX barebone-ish fan-less PC...), because once I move from my room to a larger apartement, that's sure what I'm going to do !
cheers,
Rainer
Not that having to run Longhorn on my desktop is a prospect I'm looking forward to, but still:
NTFS has been there for 10 years or so.
And it's jounaling.
Rainer
You should have got suspicious about their name, at least ;-)
But I'm also guilty - my ISP has some RBLed blocks because of a spammer.
And I'm trying to get new IPs.
You should be able to ask what IP-addresses you will get in advance and check them with www.spews.org and the rest of these sites...
Well, when you ask whem (or deduce it from the description), they're quite open about it.
Johncompanies get's good reviews by its users nevertheless and if I didn't allready have a server, this would be serious contender.
They also have FreeBSD-jails.
Yeah. Just like those who "....just want to drive a car" instead of learning to drive it properly and adhere to the traffic rules.
I actually wanted to say "learn how to use...".
Would you hand out driving licences to people who say they "just need to know how to drive to work and back home" and thus only need to know the traffic-signs and -rules that occur on the way thereto ?
I wouldn't and thankfully the current legislation here prevents that
Time for the computer driving-licence
Where's your problem ?
I usually setup the recycle bin on the servers to 0 KB and "immediate delete", so that it doesn't take up 10% of the drive, like the default.
Just tell 'em that "delete is delete" and the recovery from backup requires you to bill the time on their cost center.
After some time, they'll learn to use their computers.
Bah. Even Practical Unix & Internet Security (2nd ed.) mentioned the first WTC-bombing (1993 ?) and how important off-site backups were.
Alas, I remember reading stories about people having "off-site" backups as off-site as the other of the two towers....
- You can't move your data offsite on HDs, first of all. Ask those shops in the WTC. Some learned it the hard way. "Offsite" really means "some km away".
- Then, even if you moved IDE-drives out of the building, they are far too easy to break. Just remember the Jaz-drives from Iomega. Crap.
- And, as other people have allready pointed out, if your controller breaks and ruins the disks, you're hosed, too.
Tapes may be expensive compared to IDE HDs, but you get what you pay for.I can drop a tape to the floor dozens of times and still be able to read it. Do that with a HD and compare. And don't say "I'm not going to drop it ever". Because that's BS.
Libraries are expensive, but either you need to have the data backuped (because of whatever reasons - laws, business continuity etc. pp.) reliably and be restoreable within a certain timeframe and with a certain confidence, then you have to shell out the bucks for the tape-robot. Or you decide that the data you "own" is just not worth the effort and go for a pseudo-backup with IDE-RAID etc. that might get destroyed when the PSU in your backup-server decides to explode and take the drives and all with it.
It's your job, your life, your company.
In business-critical systems, it's important not to introduce any new code to a stable system. ...
When you get a patch from SUN for Solaris 2.7, it patches the bug, but keeps the external interface of the program or library identical.
Thus, old programs that rely on it don't break, mustn't break.
If I'd want to run a FreeBSD from 1996, I'd have to backport some/most of the patches to 2.2.x
After all, you could upgrade NT4 to 2000, with your point of view.
Rainer
My point is that the whole debate is about an OS from 1996 or so. If I compare, I must compare it with something that was available then and is still available now - and supported.
FYI: I run BSD & Linux @ home on low-end hardware and no Windoze. But I don't run a BSD from 1996. Do you ?
cheers,
Rainer
Anyone notice ?
;-)
They changed the icon !!!
Next thing is, the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation buys Andover and all assets from VA and closes shop...
What other operating systems from back then are still "supported" now ?
Solaris 2.6 maybe ? (Rapidly approaching EOL/EOS)
What else ?
Point is: NT4 is so old (and so BS), I can see why they want it to die (apart from the reason that they want to sell the new OSs)