For the last fucking time, I never said that any of this would provide a definitive evidence of how the school is doing.
Then why bother collecting it when you could be collecting qualatative statistics?
Seems you're wrong.
No, first you observe hehavior. Then you make up a hypothesis explaining that observation. Have you never taken a science class?
Nope. First you come up with a hypothesis. Otherwise, you don't know what to measure.
But that's been your problem all along. You can't tell the difference between quantity and quality.
Actually it does. Peyton Manning has thrown for 41 touchdowns. That is from quantitative data. From that, I conclude that he is most likely a good quarterback. That is a qualitative statement.
No you cannot. Not without knowing how the other quarterbacks perform.
If he throws 41, but the average for the rest is 500, then he's a pretty poor quarterback.
You cannot make a quality statement based upon a quantity data point. Too bad, so sad for you.
Yes, that is generally how scientific experiments work. Would you prefer to come up with a reason and try to fit the data to it.
Ooooh, it seems you're wrong again. Under the scientific method, first you form a hypothesis which can be falsified and then you develop an experiment to test your hypothesis based upon that.
You are confusing that with pseudo-science. Like gathering info about how Bigfoot can remain hidden.
Educated guesses, yes. So what?
Hardly "educated". Again, you have yet to show how the college graduation rate gets you any closer to identifying problems in high schools.
I never said we would get an absolute measure of how well the school is preparing students for college.
Then why collect it?
But just because information cannot be quantitatively measured does not mean it is useless.
Bullshit.
There are two forms, quantitative and qualitative.
You are measuring quantitative data (the rate of college graduation).
But then you're trying to use that quantitative data to make a qualatative statement.
Too bad, but it doesn't work that way.
Again, all you're measuring is rate, but you think you're measuring quality.
Maybe you should take some statistics classes, yes?
Go back and RTFA, along with these posts again. Maybe then you will get it. We are not talking about just measuring one factor. We are talking about measuring many factors and using all of those to help determine how well the schools are doing. Understand?
Yes. Now give specific examples of how the college graduation rate will tell you which high schools are doing a better job at preparing the students.
Well lets see, if the 20% school has everyone going to tough schools, that could explain it.
And now you're missing the point again.
You're defining "tough schools" based on graduation rates.
If the 20% school has everyone studying tough subjects, that could also explain it.
Now you're defining "touch subjects" based upon graduation rates.
If the 20% school has everyone getting decent grades but still dropping out for other reasons, that would also explain it.
"For other reasons". Nice. So your measurement is completely worthless then.
I really can't make it any simpler.
I'm sure you cannot because of the simple fact that you do not understand either statistics or control groups.
Now, with standardized tests, you wouldn't have to guess at whether it was "tough schools" or "tough subjects". You'd KNOW.
All electrical engineering students would take the same, standardized, tests. You'd SEE which schools taught the information.
That would TELL you which high schools prepared their students better because you'd see the test scores of the students through high school and through college.
...tough schools, that could explain it.
Wrong.
...tough subjects, that could also explain it.
Wrong.
...other reasons, that would also explain it.
Wrong.
You see this as just collecting data and THEN seeing if you can fit some reason(s) to it.
Wrong! You determine what you want to measure FIRST and THEN you determine how to measure it.
All you're doing is measuring college graduation rates and GUESSING about which MULTIPLE factors could cause the numbers you're seeing.
That's BACKWARDS.
And in the end, it tells you NOTHING.
As in your replies, you do not KNOW what the cause is. All you're doing is guessing what "could explain it".
Which means the data you've gathered has not put you any closer to finding the cause than you were when you started.
Which means the data you've gathered is worthless.
Its not all you are measuring. Its one of many factors. I don't know how I can make this point which you constantly miss more clear.
I'm not missing it. You are wrong.
Measuring graduation rate means measuring graduation rate.
That is all it measures. Nothing more (as you seem to believe).
Look at the schools the students go to. Look at the degree programs. Look at the grades. Etc.
Looking at the schools the students will go to will give you nothing more that a list of the schools the students go to.
How will that tell you why one high school has 20% college graduation and the rest have 60%?
Hmmmm?
Looking at the degree programs will tell you what degree programs are available.
How will that tell you why one high school has 20% college graduation and the rest have 60%?
Hmmmmm?
Looking at the grades will not tell you anything UNLESS those tests are standardized.
Go ahead and tell me what comparing two different, non-standardized tests will tell you about why one high school has a 20% college graduation rate and why the rest have 60%.
In fact, you can even use all FOUR of the factors you've mentioned. #1. College graduation rates #2. Which schools #3. The degree programs #4. The grades (on non-standardized tests)
Go ahead and explain how those factors would indicate WHY one high school... 20%... rest... 60%.
I never said it was a perfect statistic, in fact I clearly said it wasn't. But it is an indicator if there are serious problems in the school's education.
No, it doesn't show that. For that to be shown, there would have to be some standard other than rate that was measured.
If all you're measuring is rate, all you know is rate.
And rate can be affected by too many things.
Say most schools in the area are having around 60% of their alumni graduate from college (I have no idea if these are realistic numbers, I'm just making them up). If one school has a much lower graduation rate, lets say 20%, that is cause for further investigation as to why so many of that school's graduates fail at the next level.
You could do that.
But how would you go about determining the cause of the 20% graduation rate? Hmmmmmm?
If you say "standardized tests in high school", then you've just invalidated you claim that rate tells you anything because we already have standardized tests in high school.
It seems your bigest objection is that there isn't a command line version of the GUI tools. I can't give you a command to type in and do it. There isn't one. That doesn't mean that the tools don't exist. That doesn't mean that the tools aren't adequate. That just means that you have to use a GUI for functionality that is not available at a command line.
Nope. My biggest objection is that the functionality does not exist for Windows, as I've said many, many times in this thread.
With a Windows system, the package contains the information, not the system itself.
I can build a package with SMS for SMS to distribute foo.dll and SMS will distribute that package.
I then install an update to foo.dll from Microsoft's website.
So, two different packages have installed foo.dll.
I can then have the SMS package remove foo.dll and it will be gone. Even though the file should now be owned by whatever package installed it from Microsoft's website.
From how I read it in the article, they had a 3rd party tool that doesn't look for dependencies properly (something the built-in Microsoft tools do), it was otherwise perfect (presumably). They then had some error, whether software or human is undetermined.
Again, such an error is easy with Windows (as demonstrated in the article). It is far more difficult with Debian. And that is because Debian has a working package management system.
There was one and only one failure. It was a 3rd party tool, not part of the OS, nor related to any Microsoft tool. It copied files without regard to what was already on there. That is one little error (improper version checking). It caused major problems ni affected systems.
Yet I have shown how having only ONE error will result in the update NOT being installed on a Debian system. Which is how it should be.
If there is an error, the update process should fail rather than corrupt the workstation.
Under Debian, it takes multiple, very specific errors to break the system.
I think you are missing the point. We are not talking about judging the schools by how many students they graduate from their school, we are talking about using (as one factor) how many students out of their school graduate from the next level to judge the school.
Nope. I understand that. And I still say that it is a useless statistic in judging anything.
All it does is measure the graduation rate.
A college with lower requirements for graduation will graduate more students than a college with higher requirements (on average).
You see in the current system, if Sally graduates from Jefferson High and gets in college, Jefferson High gets the same mark regardless of what happens to her after then. But if we are keeping track of how alumni are doing at the university level, we can see whether or not Sally learned enough in high school to do well in college.
No we cannot.
All we can tell is that Sally graduated college.
She might have taken a junk liberal arts degree and barely passed.
Meanwhile, someone from a different high school gets better grades and is better prepared for college, but he chooses a far more difficult college and program. He learns a lot, but cannot complete his program so he drops out and gets a vendor certification and goes to work.
He would still be better educated than Sally, and if he had chosen her path, he might have graduated also.
Measuring the rate is meaningless.
Two people from the same high school can be identically prepared for college, yet one graduates because he took an easy program at an easy college and another drops out because he chose a harder program at a harder college.
Therefore, you know nothing about how well prepared they were.
The graduation rate isn't what matters. We can just drop the standards until we graduate whatever percentage.
No, this alone may not be the most useful statistic ever developed, but used with other stats it may still help determine the true quality of a school.
Nope. Not without some form of standardized testing.
You're talking about measuring rate - but then you're talking about measuring quality. The two are not related.
Why? If I were to agree with your initial assertion, made long before I came along, that they don't have a decent package, would you then answer my question regarding the operation of the tools you listed on networked computers?
Of course. But whether or not you'll understand it is another issue.
It's a very simple process once you understand the basics of package management.
#1. All files belong to packages.
#2. Packages have dependencies upon other packages.
#3. So to update a bunch of systems on a network, all you have to do is make the updated package available to the system. With Debian, this is controlled in/etc/apt/sources.list.
#4. Then you trigger the system to download and install the update. This is done via ssh or telnet or rcp whatever you have.
Because the system is downloading and upgrading/installing the package, it is much more difficult to make an error that gets installed.
If you are upgrading libfoo4, but the machines that you don't want to upgrade have libfoo3, that's not a problem. Both can exist on the same system. That's when orphaner comes into play so you can see what is installed that isn't referenced by other packages.
If you are upgrading something that would break the system (although I don't know what that could be), you'd still have to get the dependencies correct. The system would throw an error when it saw an upgrade that didn't match the dependencies of other packages. (if no dependency issues, then it wouldn't break the system, although that specific app may not work).
So, in order to get the same result as in the article, you'd have to:
#1. build an upgrade package with the bad file in it.
#2. build the package with broken dependencies
#3. build updates to the packages that depend upon that package
#4. put those packages in the incorrect directory.
In other words, too many things have to go wrong in very specific ways to cause these problems.
It's easy to check various items before installing the software. Kernel version, library versions, group existance, user existance, etc. All you have to do is parse the associated file/report. uname -a tells you the kernel package you have installed, for example.
So, for Debian, to do a controlled, automatic update of all machines on the network with kernel package 2.4.25-1-386, with packages libfoo4 and myapp4, the process is....
ssh to first candidate check kernel version apt-get install libfoo4, myapp4 log success/errors next machine mail success/error log to myself
The key concept is having the stable, reliable package management system on the machines. Once you have that, each step above that is simple and logical and errors will cause the update/install process to fail rather than to break the machine (which is how it should be).
If you can, grab an old machine and install Debian testing on it. Play with it for a while and you'll see how easy a single machine is to administer. With just a bit of scripting, an entire network of them is only a bit more complicated.
Not to mention troubleshooting those workstations. I can quickly compare the exact package listing of two machines (one not working / one working) to see where they differ on packages, file versions, even file checksums. So troubleshooting a software package problem takes 5 minutes on matching workstations.
You haven't backed up your initial claim that there isn't a decent package management system. You said it was impossible to prove a negative. So I provided the names of the package management systems that are decent.
No you didn't. You listed a bunch of Microsoft tools.
Ah, so you are asserting that all the tools included in a basic Windows server install, like Group Policy Management Console (which lets you control software installs on computers, including non-Microsoft programs) and Microsoft Software Update Services (for updates to Microsoft products) don't exist, and that you bring up 3rd party tools, but are claiming that Systems Management Server or other add-on tools from Microsoft don't exist.
I thought you were trying to confuse the issue by just listing whatever tools you could find.
Now I believe that you really do not know what a package management system is.
dpkg -S/lib/* That will tell you which package installed which file in the/lib directory. That is a function of the package management system.
Perhaps he read it and recognized it to be wrong? Microsoft does have a decent package management system.
So, you claim Windows "does have a decent package managment system", but I say it cannot even keep track of the most basic information (which package installed which file). So you demanded that I prove my point. I did so by giving a specific example of a task that you have so far been unable to duplicate. Too bad for you.
Go ahead and support your claim. Show how I can get the same functionality with Windows as:
#1 apt-get install deborphan orphaner -a
#2 dpkg -S/lib/*
So, can you now answer my yes/no question I've asked repeatedly that you refuse to answer?
I've already answered that. You have to either admit you were wrong or support your claim by showing me the functionality I used as an example.
You think that just getting files onto a box is "decent package management", don't you.:)
Yep, you're definately a Windows fan.
Even when I give you specific examples you cannot admit that Windows is flawed.:D
No, you have not. You have not answered whether it is able to check multiple networked computers at the same time. It is a simple question I'm asking for explicit clarification which you are apparently refusing to answer.
Again, I'll deal with that once you've substantiated your original claim.
What you are actually trying to do is to take the discussion off on a tangent in an attempt to find something that you can claim I am wrong about.
I'm not going to let you do that.
I said that Microsoft does not have the tools. You said that Microsoft did.
It is up to you to identify the tools and how they are used to accomplish that. Otherwise, my statement stands.
apt-get install deborphan orphaner -a
Once you that has been dealt with, then I will be willing to give you specifics on how to install/update software on a network of Debian machines via the network.
And that gets back the the story about Windows fans that I found so amusing. Once your magic words failed (you naming tools from Microsoft that I already knew do not have that functionality but that you did not know I knew and you hoped would "prove" me wrong), when pressed for specifics on how those magic words would work, you resort to attempts to blame others for your failings (demanding that I show the existance of functionality in Debian that you have not shown exists nor stated does not exist in Windows).
(Here's one example) apt-get install deborphan orphaner -a
(Here's another example) dpkg -S/lib/*
There. I've provided TWO very specific examples (down to the exact keystrokes to type) of the functionality of a real package management system.
How do you make a standardized test for university students with a diverse field of studies? An engineering student will have learned different stuff than the biology student who will have learned different things than an English major.
That is the problem.
So, since the data that will be collected is useless in determining performance, why do they want to collect it at all?
If the government is looking to track performance (and not just how many people can graduate with a liberal arts degree), they'll need standardized tests in college.
Otherwise, a tough professor with a lot of people quiting his class but graduating a few, highly educated people will look worse than someone who graduates everyone, even if they can barely tie their shoes.
Please, for my edification, tell me in a yes or no whether the tools you mention are capable of performing the checks or upgrades on multiple remote computers at the same time without having to visit any of the remote computers affected or not affected.
We're still dealing with your claims about Microsoft's tools. Once that is settled, we can move on to other matters.
This reminds me of a funny story about Windows fans. It seems that they are rather, how to say it...., they have limited mental capabilities. Given a problem, they try to push the buttons they've pushed before. When that fails, the try their magic words ("reboot" or "re-install" or "reload"). When that fails, they try to blame someone else in an attempt to distract attention from their problem.
Maybe you had to be there. I was amused. Anyway... stay focused. This is still about Microsoft's tools. Once that is settled, we can talk about other subjects. Okay? Thanks.:)
it's all about market share and whether it's worth the hackers' time to notice and crack them.
That is completely incorrect. Security has NOTHING to do with marketshare. The two are independent of each other.
If Linux ever becomes as popular as windows, I guarantee malcontents will find any and every way to comprimise your system in under 4 minutes.
Again, Marketshare != Security. Just look at how XP +sp2 did. The machines that were cracked that quickly were cracked via automated worm attacks. If you block the ports, you block the worms.
Every system has holes that can be exploited by a creative person with too much time on his hands.
Incorrect. The holes can only be exploited by someone with access to the system. If you don't have available ports, then the cracker can't get access to you from the Internet. Which only leaves social engineering.
Right now, Windows is where the money potential is at, with Linux and Apple trailing the rear by a super-large margin.
You seem convinced that Marketshare == Security. Why is that?
No, this isn't a flame for OS or Linux. This is a flame for everybody who keeps making these assnine comparisons and believes that they're OS integrity is somehow extra special or that Windows M$ is extra bad.
Ummm, there's only one problem comparision happening here and it's from you. Marketshare != Security.
Simply put, Linux does have a better security model than Windows does.
Even Firefox has a better security model than IE. Firefox starts with the deny everything that is not specifically allowed by the user.
IE starts with the allow everything that isn't specifically denied by the user.
Now, a very knowledgable person can achieve the same level of protection with both of these systems. But that does not mean that both models are equally secure.
Linux vs Windows is the same. Particularly since IE is "integrated" with the OS.
Read the other responses. The Mac was targetted so often because it was running Samba and the attacking machines' scans saw that port and tried to exploit the vulnerabilities associated with Windows.
On the Internet, it doesn't matter if you only have 1 million boxes to Microsoft's 100 million. A scanner can find them. If they are vulnerable, they will be cracked. Maybe not in 4 minutes...
But the Linux box in the article was being attacked a couple of times an hour.
If you're vulnerable, one attack will crack you.
If you are not vulnerable, a million attempts won't crack you.
So... what you're saying is that you consider a lock on the outer doors of your house, an alarm system, AND random police patrols evidence that your house has a "bad security paradigm".
Yep. Most houses aren't built with security in mind.
I'm not going to deny that Windows has made a number of decisions over the years which contribute to this, but honestly if your house had the exact same lock and the exact same key as every other house in the neighborhood, you should not be surprised when you get burglarized.
Lots of houses do get burglarized and the reason is that they have very badly designed security models.
But part of the reason they have bad security models is because people need to be able to quickly leave them in case of emergency (fire for example). Otherwise they could be designed with complex locks on each entry/exit point.
Of an arbitrary number of computers over a network? The question has never been about local tools but has been about being able to do it for a subset of networked computers, multiple at a time, without having to touch the affected (or unaffected) computers.
So you admit that Microsoft does not have the tools?
Is that what you're saying? Before this goes anywhere else, that question will be answered.
Since you claim it is all that is needed, how would one enter which of the computers to check and which not to check?
Awww, since I won't let you play with your strawman or other logical fallacies, now you have to resort to lies?
Where did I claim that that is all that is needed?
That is the evidence that Debian has a functioning package management system and that Windows does not.
With a functioning package management system as the base, I can do things you've never dreamed possible.
cd/lib dpkg -S *
That will tell me the package that installed each file in the/lib directory. Every file.
Go ahead and show me how to do that with Windows.
Smackdown XV counting down at 2
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
VERY well said. You haven't withdrawn because you don't feel that you would be leaving in a logically superior position. Fair enough. The whole descent into icelandic was a bit immature at best, but I knew you had more to say.
Hardly. After all, I am the only one posting actual support for his claims. You've actually REFUSED to support your claims. You have two more chances to support your claims or to refute my supporting material.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems you're wrong, again.
Seems you're wrong.Nope. First you come up with a hypothesis. Otherwise, you don't know what to measure.
But that's been your problem all along. You can't tell the difference between quantity and quality.No you cannot. Not without knowing how the other quarterbacks perform.
If he throws 41, but the average for the rest is 500, then he's a pretty poor quarterback.
You cannot make a quality statement based upon a quantity data point. Too bad, so sad for you.
You are confusing that with pseudo-science. Like gathering info about how Bigfoot can remain hidden. Hardly "educated". Again, you have yet to show how the college graduation rate gets you any closer to identifying problems in high schools. Then why collect it?Bullshit.
There are two forms, quantitative and qualitative.
You are measuring quantitative data (the rate of college graduation).
But then you're trying to use that quantitative data to make a qualatative statement.
Too bad, but it doesn't work that way.
Again, all you're measuring is rate, but you think you're measuring quality.
Maybe you should take some statistics classes, yes?
You're defining "tough schools" based on graduation rates.Now you're defining "touch subjects" based upon graduation rates."For other reasons". Nice. So your measurement is completely worthless then.I'm sure you cannot because of the simple fact that you do not understand either statistics or control groups.
Now, with standardized tests, you wouldn't have to guess at whether it was "tough schools" or "tough subjects". You'd KNOW.
All electrical engineering students would take the same, standardized, tests. You'd SEE which schools taught the information.
That would TELL you which high schools prepared their students better because you'd see the test scores of the students through high school and through college.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.
You see this as just collecting data and THEN seeing if you can fit some reason(s) to it.
Wrong! You determine what you want to measure FIRST and THEN you determine how to measure it.
All you're doing is measuring college graduation rates and GUESSING about which MULTIPLE factors could cause the numbers you're seeing.
That's BACKWARDS.
And in the end, it tells you NOTHING.
As in your replies, you do not KNOW what the cause is. All you're doing is guessing what "could explain it".
Which means the data you've gathered has not put you any closer to finding the cause than you were when you started.
Which means the data you've gathered is worthless.
Measuring graduation rate means measuring graduation rate.
That is all it measures. Nothing more (as you seem to believe).Looking at the schools the students will go to will give you nothing more that a list of the schools the students go to.
How will that tell you why one high school has 20% college graduation and the rest have 60%?
Hmmmm?
Looking at the degree programs will tell you what degree programs are available.
How will that tell you why one high school has 20% college graduation and the rest have 60%?
Hmmmmm?
Looking at the grades will not tell you anything UNLESS those tests are standardized.
Go ahead and tell me what comparing two different, non-standardized tests will tell you about why one high school has a 20% college graduation rate and why the rest have 60%.
In fact, you can even use all FOUR of the factors you've mentioned.
#1. College graduation rates
#2. Which schools
#3. The degree programs
#4. The grades (on non-standardized tests)
Go ahead and explain how those factors would indicate WHY one high school
If all you're measuring is rate, all you know is rate.
And rate can be affected by too many things.You could do that.
But how would you go about determining the cause of the 20% graduation rate? Hmmmmmm?
If you say "standardized tests in high school", then you've just invalidated you claim that rate tells you anything because we already have standardized tests in high school.
With a Windows system, the package contains the information, not the system itself.
I can build a package with SMS for SMS to distribute foo.dll and SMS will distribute that package.
I then install an update to foo.dll from Microsoft's website.
So, two different packages have installed foo.dll.
I can then have the SMS package remove foo.dll and it will be gone. Even though the file should now be owned by whatever package installed it from Microsoft's website.Again, such an error is easy with Windows (as demonstrated in the article). It is far more difficult with Debian. And that is because Debian has a working package management system.Yet I have shown how having only ONE error will result in the update NOT being installed on a Debian system. Which is how it should be.
If there is an error, the update process should fail rather than corrupt the workstation.
Under Debian, it takes multiple, very specific errors to break the system.
All it does is measure the graduation rate.
A college with lower requirements for graduation will graduate more students than a college with higher requirements (on average).No we cannot.
All we can tell is that Sally graduated college.
She might have taken a junk liberal arts degree and barely passed.
Meanwhile, someone from a different high school gets better grades and is better prepared for college, but he chooses a far more difficult college and program. He learns a lot, but cannot complete his program so he drops out and gets a vendor certification and goes to work.
He would still be better educated than Sally, and if he had chosen her path, he might have graduated also.
Measuring the rate is meaningless.
Two people from the same high school can be identically prepared for college, yet one graduates because he took an easy program at an easy college and another drops out because he chose a harder program at a harder college.
Therefore, you know nothing about how well prepared they were.
One server is still serving pages.
...
The other is giving errors.
Now, since the server still running was linked TWICE while the other server was only linked ONCE
Of course, the actual content of those pages is a factor. Since I cannot see one of them, I cannot comment on it.
You're talking about measuring rate - but then you're talking about measuring quality. The two are not related.
It's a very simple process once you understand the basics of package management.
#1. All files belong to packages.
#2. Packages have dependencies upon other packages.
#3. So to update a bunch of systems on a network, all you have to do is make the updated package available to the system. With Debian, this is controlled in
#4. Then you trigger the system to download and install the update. This is done via ssh or telnet or rcp whatever you have.
Because the system is downloading and upgrading/installing the package, it is much more difficult to make an error that gets installed.
If you are upgrading libfoo4, but the machines that you don't want to upgrade have libfoo3, that's not a problem. Both can exist on the same system. That's when orphaner comes into play so you can see what is installed that isn't referenced by other packages.
If you are upgrading something that would break the system (although I don't know what that could be), you'd still have to get the dependencies correct. The system would throw an error when it saw an upgrade that didn't match the dependencies of other packages. (if no dependency issues, then it wouldn't break the system, although that specific app may not work).
So, in order to get the same result as in the article, you'd have to:
#1. build an upgrade package with the bad file in it.
#2. build the package with broken dependencies
#3. build updates to the packages that depend upon that package
#4. put those packages in the incorrect directory.
In other words, too many things have to go wrong in very specific ways to cause these problems.
It's easy to check various items before installing the software. Kernel version, library versions, group existance, user existance, etc. All you have to do is parse the associated file/report. uname -a tells you the kernel package you have installed, for example.
So, for Debian, to do a controlled, automatic update of all machines on the network with kernel package 2.4.25-1-386, with packages libfoo4 and myapp4, the process is
ssh to first candidate
check kernel version
apt-get install libfoo4, myapp4
log success/errors
next machine
mail success/error log to myself
The key concept is having the stable, reliable package management system on the machines. Once you have that, each step above that is simple and logical and errors will cause the update/install process to fail rather than to break the machine (which is how it should be).
If you can, grab an old machine and install Debian testing on it. Play with it for a while and you'll see how easy a single machine is to administer. With just a bit of scripting, an entire network of them is only a bit more complicated.
Not to mention troubleshooting those workstations. I can quickly compare the exact package listing of two machines (one not working / one working) to see where they differ on packages, file versions, even file checksums. So troubleshooting a software package problem takes 5 minutes on matching workstations.
With 2 weeks to vote, there's plenty of time to call up your friends to make sure they've all voted.
I can see this increasing the voter turn-out. Particularly because there would be 2 weekends in the 2 weeks of voting.
You don't even know what a package managment system is, do you? Let me remind you of what you had claimed. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130875&cid=10
I thought you were trying to confuse the issue by just listing whatever tools you could find.
Now I believe that you really do not know what a package management system is.
dpkg -S
That will tell you which package installed which file in the
Windows' does not have that capability.
That capability is required for a decent package management system (which you claim Windows has). http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130875&cid=10
Go ahead and support your claim. Show how I can get the same functionality with Windows as:
#1
apt-get install deborphan
orphaner -a
#2
dpkg -S
I've already answered that. You have to either admit you were wrong or support your claim by showing me the functionality I used as an example.
You think that just getting files onto a box is "decent package management", don't you.
Yep, you're definately a Windows fan.
Even when I give you specific examples you cannot admit that Windows is flawed.
If they have spyware linked to IE, most likely those settings (default web page, etc) will be transfered to Firefox.
This is probably what you experienced.
In case you're going to claim that you have, here is your first reply to me in this thread. It contains your original claim: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130875&cid=10
Go ahead, substantiate your claim:Right now, all your attempting to do is to take the discussion off on a tangent that you believe you can win at.
That's not going to happen. You have to substantiate your original claim before any other tangents are examined.
The theory sounds easy enough for anyone to handle.
But it requires 2 items from the patient's body.
#1. Dendritic cells
#2. Dead virus
This doesn't sound like something that can be mass produced which means that the price will be high for most of the world.
What you are actually trying to do is to take the discussion off on a tangent in an attempt to find something that you can claim I am wrong about.
I'm not going to let you do that.
I said that Microsoft does not have the tools.
You said that Microsoft did.
It is up to you to identify the tools and how they are used to accomplish that. Otherwise, my statement stands.
apt-get install deborphan
orphaner -a
Once you that has been dealt with, then I will be willing to give you specifics on how to install/update software on a network of Debian machines via the network.
And that gets back the the story about Windows fans that I found so amusing. Once your magic words failed (you naming tools from Microsoft that I already knew do not have that functionality but that you did not know I knew and you hoped would "prove" me wrong), when pressed for specifics on how those magic words would work, you resort to attempts to blame others for your failings (demanding that I show the existance of functionality in Debian that you have not shown exists nor stated does not exist in Windows).
(Here's one example)
apt-get install deborphan
orphaner -a
(Here's another example)
dpkg -S
There. I've provided TWO very specific examples (down to the exact keystrokes to type) of the functionality of a real package management system.
What have you provided? Nothing but empty claims.
So far, I'm up 2 to your 0.
So, since the data that will be collected is useless in determining performance, why do they want to collect it at all?
It's easy to coast through 4 years of college.
If the government is looking to track performance (and not just how many people can graduate with a liberal arts degree), they'll need standardized tests in college.
Otherwise, a tough professor with a lot of people quiting his class but graduating a few, highly educated people will look worse than someone who graduates everyone, even if they can barely tie their shoes.
This reminds me of a funny story about Windows fans. It seems that they are rather, how to say it
Maybe you had to be there. I was amused. Anyway
Simply put, Linux does have a better security model than Windows does.
Even Firefox has a better security model than IE. Firefox starts with the deny everything that is not specifically allowed by the user.
IE starts with the allow everything that isn't specifically denied by the user.
Now, a very knowledgable person can achieve the same level of protection with both of these systems. But that does not mean that both models are equally secure.
Linux vs Windows is the same. Particularly since IE is "integrated" with the OS.
Read the other responses. The Mac was targetted so often because it was running Samba and the attacking machines' scans saw that port and tried to exploit the vulnerabilities associated with Windows.
On the Internet, it doesn't matter if you only have 1 million boxes to Microsoft's 100 million. A scanner can find them. If they are vulnerable, they will be cracked. Maybe not in 4 minutes
But the Linux box in the article was being attacked a couple of times an hour.
If you're vulnerable, one attack will crack you.
If you are not vulnerable, a million attempts won't crack you.
It's Security. Not Marketshare.
But part of the reason they have bad security models is because people need to be able to quickly leave them in case of emergency (fire for example). Otherwise they could be designed with complex locks on each entry/exit point.
Is that what you're saying? Before this goes anywhere else, that question will be answered.
Again
apt-get install deborphan
orphaner -a
That's all you have to do.
Where did I claim that that is all that is needed?
That is the evidence that Debian has a functioning package management system and that Windows does not.
With a functioning package management system as the base, I can do things you've never dreamed possible.
cd
dpkg -S *
That will tell me the package that installed each file in the
Go ahead and show me how to do that with Windows.
Here's a link to it in case you need to review.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130425&cid=10
Too bad. I'm still giving you two more chances. It's up to you how you spend them.