Also, while Microsoft is dominant at home and on workstations(as well as in the Enterprise), Cisco is primarily used in medium-large businesses. Therefore it's visibility is far less that what Microsoft has. Cisco may be a household name for anyone in the IT field, but Microsoft is a household name period.
If they stopped making blade switches for HP, IBM, and Dell, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. My company saved about $60,000 by using HP switches with our HP blades rather than Cisco switches. Do you really think people would complain much if the Cisco offering disappeared? Furthermore, do you think I'm going to switch to more expensive, untested Cisco blades when I already have something that works?
Cisco needs to tread carefully. Their marketshare has been eroded by high-quality, lower cost options from Nortel, HP, and Juniper. Expanding into new markets while their primary bread-winner is getting hammered is not smart business.
Seriously. I play COD4 - mostly Search and Destroy. A typical round lasts 5 minutes and I'm alive for an average of, ohh, maybe 1 minute per round. That leaves 4 minutes/round of sitting and specing other players.....or doing push-ups, sit-ups, lunges, jumping-jacks while I'm waiting for the next round to start.
In an hour long gaming session I can get in about 200 push-ups, 50 pull-ups, 100 leg-lifts, 50 lunges. Do it after dinner when you're winding down for the night to help burn off those extra calories. No equipment required, no people around.
That said, get a bike and ride instead of drive when you can. Save some money on gas too!
I'm sorry, but I don't understand why he acted the way he did. According to the article he didn't trust anyone else to work on the network. That is some megalomaniacal thinking. No matter how competent I am, there will always be people who are capable of doing my job just as well, if not better than me. I find it hard to believe that there was no possibility of delegation to co-workers - no matter how incompetent they are. Many recurring problems can be re-delegated - and there are advantages to this:
1 - He wouldn't be the only guy capable of fixing problems and could take time off, share on-call, and re-delegate daily tasks. I re-delegate as much as possible as it frees up my time to do fun stuff like projects, write scripts, etc.
2 - I always get a better end result when I consult other people first. Even if those people have no idea what I'm talking about. The process of clarifying my thoughts - especially to the uninformed - helps me better understand what I'm doing and often exposes errant thinking.
Much better explanation than the SquirrelMail website. Sounds like this security incident supports the argument that open source software models respond very quickly to hacks.
I recently wrote a paper arguing that open source is more secure than closed source because finding and fixing flaws is easier in open source. I'm not sure if this incident supports or refutes that argument.
In one post at SquirrelMail's blog, they say that 1.412 is compromised. In the next post, they say that 1.411(released Sept 29) and 1.412(released Dec 5) are compromised. If the time between the first compromised release and the fix is 9 days, nice job. If the time between first compromised release and the fix is 2.5 months, I'm not too impressed. Regardless, it looks like the time between discovery of the flaw and patch is only 1 day, which is pretty outstanding.
Why did it take so long to find a MD5 error when the MD5 hashs and downloads are posted right next to each other for several months? Did no one check them for that long? Is this the developer's responsibility, or the responsibility of the implementing community? What measures can be taken to prevent this kind of oversight from happening again?
I'm not so worried about the compromise itself - projects will get hacked. But there are safeguards to prevent this exact hack from being too effective, and those safeguards didn't work. Why not?
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt it. Cisco is not comparable to Microsoft in terms of market leverage. There are several sites that cite numbers far less that what M$ enjoys:
http://blog.tmcnet.com/the-hyperconnected-enterprise/business-aspects/cisco-just-at-37-market-share-in-ethernet-switching.asp
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/22780
Also, while Microsoft is dominant at home and on workstations(as well as in the Enterprise), Cisco is primarily used in medium-large businesses. Therefore it's visibility is far less that what Microsoft has. Cisco may be a household name for anyone in the IT field, but Microsoft is a household name period.
If they stopped making blade switches for HP, IBM, and Dell, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. My company saved about $60,000 by using HP switches with our HP blades rather than Cisco switches. Do you really think people would complain much if the Cisco offering disappeared? Furthermore, do you think I'm going to switch to more expensive, untested Cisco blades when I already have something that works?
Cisco needs to tread carefully. Their marketshare has been eroded by high-quality, lower cost options from Nortel, HP, and Juniper. Expanding into new markets while their primary bread-winner is getting hammered is not smart business.
Seriously. I play COD4 - mostly Search and Destroy. A typical round lasts 5 minutes and I'm alive for an average of, ohh, maybe 1 minute per round. That leaves 4 minutes/round of sitting and specing other players.....or doing push-ups, sit-ups, lunges, jumping-jacks while I'm waiting for the next round to start.
In an hour long gaming session I can get in about 200 push-ups, 50 pull-ups, 100 leg-lifts, 50 lunges. Do it after dinner when you're winding down for the night to help burn off those extra calories. No equipment required, no people around.
That said, get a bike and ride instead of drive when you can. Save some money on gas too!
-KB
I'm sorry, but I don't understand why he acted the way he did. According to the article he didn't trust anyone else to work on the network. That is some megalomaniacal thinking. No matter how competent I am, there will always be people who are capable of doing my job just as well, if not better than me. I find it hard to believe that there was no possibility of delegation to co-workers - no matter how incompetent they are. Many recurring problems can be re-delegated - and there are advantages to this:
1 - He wouldn't be the only guy capable of fixing problems and could take time off, share on-call, and re-delegate daily tasks. I re-delegate as much as possible as it frees up my time to do fun stuff like projects, write scripts, etc.
2 - I always get a better end result when I consult other people first. Even if those people have no idea what I'm talking about. The process of clarifying my thoughts - especially to the uninformed - helps me better understand what I'm doing and often exposes errant thinking.
-KB
Much better explanation than the SquirrelMail website. Sounds like this security incident supports the argument that open source software models respond very quickly to hacks.
I recently wrote a paper arguing that open source is more secure than closed source because finding and fixing flaws is easier in open source. I'm not sure if this incident supports or refutes that argument. In one post at SquirrelMail's blog, they say that 1.412 is compromised. In the next post, they say that 1.411(released Sept 29) and 1.412(released Dec 5) are compromised. If the time between the first compromised release and the fix is 9 days, nice job. If the time between first compromised release and the fix is 2.5 months, I'm not too impressed. Regardless, it looks like the time between discovery of the flaw and patch is only 1 day, which is pretty outstanding. Why did it take so long to find a MD5 error when the MD5 hashs and downloads are posted right next to each other for several months? Did no one check them for that long? Is this the developer's responsibility, or the responsibility of the implementing community? What measures can be taken to prevent this kind of oversight from happening again? I'm not so worried about the compromise itself - projects will get hacked. But there are safeguards to prevent this exact hack from being too effective, and those safeguards didn't work. Why not?