I realize that this is kind of late, but I work 3rd shift and I have *much* more time overnight (nearly 8 hours of it {g}).
Easiest way to migrate Windows from one drive/partition to another (short of using special software (such as DriveCopy or the thing that comes with the Maxtor drives), which is what we're talking about, right?) is to boot Windows and either open a DOS box or go to Start|Run, and type (assuming you're copying everything from the C: drive to the D: drive) "xcopy32 c:\*.* d:\/h/e/c/k/v", if you have xcopy32 (I'm not sure when MS introduced it into Windows). Worked like a charm on my Win98 partition, and took, oh, between 10-30 minutes (can't remember for sure). This was when I moved from a 2 (!) gig drive to my present 27-gig drive.
If this is the "real" reason why "This is a good thing!" as you stated above, then it's really sad for Linux.
I agree, but it's not. This posting was my feeble attempt at humor.
If this is the "real" reason why "This is a good thing!" as you stated above, then it's really sad for Linux.
It's not. The point I was trying to make in my first post (/me ducks!) was that this will more-than-likely open doors for the broader acceptance of Linux in the corporate/enterprise/whatever-you-want-to-call-it environment, for the reasons stated in my other top-level post. And from reading the overall negative tone about this company's software in the other posts, companies with superior products ought to start saying, "Our software is better than theirs. Let's port ours!" Maybe I'm too idealistic.
In the past when people would say "but there's no virus protection software for Linux," we would say "but you don't *need* it with Linux, virii are non-existent because of the design of the system."
Now when people say "but there's no virus protection software for Linux," we can say "yes there is." Sort of loses something, doesn't it?
Try marketing-speak! "But there's no virus protection software for Linux..."
"Linux doesn't need AV software, but there's a package available if you need to scan for Windows viruses on your network.
You make some good points. I'll freely admit that personally, I much prefer open-source software to closed-source software. However, I'm not a programmer. I'm working to change that, but as it stands right now, I'm not.
The beauty of this, however, is that I can gain some benefits from our "model", too.
Keep in mind who this software is aimed at. It is not aimed at Joe Clue; it is aimed at anti-clueful managers to buy for their IT guys. There's some interesting-looking stuff there, but I was referring to simply the AV (InnoculateIT) package. While this provides some marginal (yet somewhat useful) functionality for Linux machines, the main application I see for it is virus scanning for alien platforms. It's my feeling that this can do nothing but help the acceptance of Linux in the corporate world.
YMMV, no guarantees are provided, void where prohibited, offer restricted in certain areas...
ISLANDIA, N.Y., and RESEARCH TRIANGLE, N.C., January 26, 2000 -- Computer Associates International, Inc. (CA) and Red Hat, Inc. (RHAT) today announced a far-reaching distribution, marketing and litigation support agreement in which Red Hat will distribute CA's comprehensive enterprise lawsuit solutions with its Red Hat Linux Enterprise Courtroom Edition series, delivering a seamless out-of-the-box lawsuit solution tightly packaged for the litigous customer. In turn, CA's legal department will sell Red Hat's comprehensive enterprise legal support agreements to Unicenter TNG clients.
I know that many of you are thinking, "WTF?!!? AV software for Linux?"
Let me tell you *WHY* it's a Good Thing...
Many shops are forced to keep an NT server around to provide virus-scanning services for the Windows desktops in the company. Because "Linux doesn't have viruses", the Linux boxen tend to act as a Typhoid Mary during a Windows virus infection.
It is precisely because of the fact that there is no virus-scanning software for Linux (for DOS/Win16/Win32 viruses) that many otherwise clueful PHBs will not adopt it. Software to scan for alien viruses on email attachments, etc, can only broaden the appeal of Linux.
It's also not a bad thing if they provide scanners for native viruses.
"What?!!?" you say. "Sure there is concept, but for all practical purposes, there are no Linux viruses. Besides, permissions protect us!"
True, my friend. Permissions protect the system from getting hosed. A virus can only affect your own files, or files that you have write permission to. Consider, though: the system, aside from configuration (which, I realize, is not insignificant), is on the original install media. What do you have under your account?
That's right. Your data, which is far more valuable.
It's true, any non-half-assed shop keeps backups... but let's face it, it's a real pain in the ass to restore. And managers hate to be inconvenienced.:)
Reserve some judgment on this, and try to be somewhat open-minded whilst reaching your own conclusions.
Mikko Hypponen, manager of anti-virus research at F-Secure, believes the discovery heralds a new era in virus writing and virus protection. "Now we can expect virus writers to include Windows 2000 compatibility as a standard feature in new viruses," he says.
Secondly, if you don't want to mess with your MBR and use LILO, loadlin is a great program you can use to load Linux from DOS. I use loadlin because I have that problem of my Linux partition being above the 1024 cylinder so the BIOS can't load the kernel, loadlin solves this problem also.
No need to even bother with that.
I have a shiny new 27 gig drive that my fiancee gave me for Christmas. Partitioned like so:
/dev/hda1: ~16 megabytes, ext2, type 83, mounted on/boot. This is where I store my kernel(s). LILO is mounted in the superblock of this partition and presents the boot menu from there.
/dev/hda2: ~13 gigs, vfat. Windows 98.
/dev/hda3: ~13 gigs, ext2, type 83. Mounted on /
/dev/hda4: ~128 megs, swap, type 82.
So you see, you neither need to rely on a Microsoft operating system to kick-start your Linux boot-up nor put LILO in your MBR. I'll grant you, though, that your method has some conveniences that mine lacks. (Namely, I was able to pick out my partitioning scheme before there was any data on the drive.)
It's not my intention to come off as snotty or arrogant; I just wanted to point out there is an alternative.
Then, there's the fact that they'd be printing the e-mails out. Ummm - that means they'd also get to read them. The reason I use an envelope is to stop that. This seems a very retrograde step.
Certainly, this would not suffice for some applications, but it seems quite reasonable in a postcard-like application.
Encryption (a la PGP) and envelopes are just different means to a similar end. I wonder if they would support some kind of "electronic envelope" technology.
Of course, the e-transmitted document would still have to be printed in a human-readable format before it's put in a envelope.
But is this really any different than trusting a few dozen strangers (from beginning to end) to handle your envelope without opening it? Of course, Federal law prohibits just such action. I would imagine that similar laws would be passed if this initiative goes forward. Besides, isn't what prevents more snooping right now (besides ethical considerations and illegality) sheer volume? I can see the USPS, if this catches on, acquiring newspaper-press-type machines that print the letter and envelope, fold it, and stuff it, all without ever being touched by a human hand.
I can see more interesting applications, though. For example, if you buy an item at auction (say, on eBay), and the seller is not a business, you cannot pay by credit card. If you don't have a checking account, or do not want to use a personal check, you must purchase a money order for ~$.60. Add $.33 for the stamp, and you've spent around a dollar to get the money to the seller, and you still have to wait for your mail to get to them, and for your item to get back. Now, imagine instead, you go to the USPS web site, type in your letter, enter the address and your credit card number, and the information is transmitted electronically to the closest post office to the receiver. There, they print the letter and the check, stuff them in an envelope, and deliver them for you the next day! You've just cut delivery time on your merchandise by approximately half, and if they could do it for ~$.50-$.75, they'd have the market on this one. This would work if you didn't have a credit card, too, by simply going to the post office and paying by cash.
How about having a terminal where you can read your email at the post office (and print to take home, if you choose) for those people who don't have computers and don't want the postal workers printing out their email?
Someone else said that a lot of corporate types like to send email to addresses in the format 'John.Smith@domainname.tld', but this would cause problems with common names. How about a format like 'JohnSmith.123MainStreet@AnytownCA.90210.usps.gov' ?
Do bear in mind, though, that many open-source coders are loathe to submit code under the NPL or MozPL, simply because the code can be put into a commercial product. I saw at mozilla.org (I believe) that they're of the opinion that there are more Mozilla developers within Netscape than without. (My apologies: I'd provide a link, but it was a couple months ago, and I've spent the last 15 minutes or so searching the site to no avail.)
OTOH, you *do* need to protect yourself with something like one of these licenses if you don't want to hassle with getting additional permission from each author; otherwise, it opens up a world of legal hurtin'.:) You might consider discussing with each contributor licensing terms and royalties upon submission of their code (or possibly even before they submit their code).
The Netscape Public License FAQ has good explanations of not only the NPL, but several other open-source licenses as well, including BSD, GPL, LGPL, and the Artistic License.
It's my understanding that the major differance between the LGPL and the GPL is simply the fact that you can link to GPL-incompatible libraries using the LGPL. Unless that's all you want to accomplish over the GPL, then there's really no major difference. 'Course, you could always make an Open-Source Copyrighted Undistributable Software Product.;)
Good luck in your endeavor.
PS.
However, as far as I know, the distiction of "what is entirely new code" is sufficiently hard to draw that most code ends up under the NPL. I am ready to be corrected on this, of course:+)
From the NPL FAQ:
The following is a good guide to what constitutes a modification.
If you change anything within one of the files contained in the Source Code, that is a Modification, and it is covered by the NPL.
If you take code out of one of the files contained in the Source Code and place it in a new file, whether you add new code or not, that is a Modification, and it is covered by the NPL.
If you rename a file or combine two or more files contained in the Source Code, that is a Modification, and it is covered by the NPL.
However, if you add a new file that does not contain any of the Original Code or subsequent Modified code, it is not a Modification, and is not covered by the NPL. This remains true even if the new file is called or referenced by changes you made in an NPL file; the changes made to the NPL file would need to be covered by the NPL, but the code in the new file could be under any other compatible license.
If I'm not mistaken, Gateway and others have, for a little while, at least, been giving a year's worth of "free" access with the purchase of certain models from them.
Like many others around here, I don't expect this trend to disappear any time soon. How many co-branded credit cards are there, anyway?
One positive thing about their service is that although you have to use Win32, you get a choice of email clients, which is more than I can say for MSN (yes, I fell for that trap). You see, I didn't like the way Outlook Express handled replies (the Right Way (IMO) is to put the reply and signature after the quoted text), so I downloaded Netscape and gave it a try. Imagine my surprise when it failed to connect and retrieve my email! I checked and compared between the MS and Netscape, and the only significant difference between the two configuration screens was an option for something called Secure Password Authentication. I later found a HOWTO-like document telling how to access MSN from Linux. (I became interested in Linux after I got my computer and fell for the trap.) It turns out that UUNet actually provides the connectivity. A couple items in the document explained things, though:
If you've ever looked at your internet address, you may have noticed that it ends in uu.net. Now we know that we don't have to deal with any proprietary Microsoft protocols (at least to connect).
and (near the end):
Well, you should be able to enjoy most of your MSN account now. You can't get your email yet because thats hidden behind Microsoft's SPA.
Things seem to be turning out all right, though, as I've just started a new job at an ISP (and get free access (even DSL after I've been there a little bit!)), and MSN has been unable to charge my credit card (tee hee!). (They haven't mentioned anything about the $400 yet. I've got to check my contract, though, after that Slashdot story a couple weeks back -- one of the postings told of someone in Columbus, OH who was able to get out of his contract with no strings attached!)
Alas, I fear I've started to ramble. Perhaps a combination of sleep deprivation and caffeine OD.
-- This post brought to you by the elements N, H, C, and O, and the alkaloid caffeine.
...and a product that required training to use properly.
Any "server product" that is worth using requires knowledge of it.
Would you really want untrained persons administering your Net-connected LAN?
Take an NT guy and put him in front of a Linux box... Or take your UNIX admin and put her in front of an NT box...
I think you can see where I'm headed with this. If you make it so simple that training is not needed, you wind up with something that provides no real value. If you build something that can do useful work, you'll need to be trained how to use it properly!
Sure, you can just sit down in front of the terminal and start typing away, but you'll not be getting the full benefit from the product.
Every software product requires training (in some fashion, whether that be classes, books, or whatever) to use properly. Especially servers.
I went to Byte and read this, and on 2 of the 4 pages of the article, there were banner ads for Win2K proclaiming how easy and integrate-able and reliable and stable it is. The ads had small movies on the right-hand side, interviewing supposed IT people. "We've been using Windows 2000 since Beta 3, and we haven't had to reboot our servers yet!" I wonder if this was accidental or if it was done intentionally (targeted advertising on MS's part?).
This certainly is a breakthrough. I never imagined that I would see "the cure for the common cold" in my lifetime. It is truly remarkable.
As the articles says, however, the cold is not the most exciting application. This will certainly do a lot of people a lot of good.
One thought, though... Who would pay $50-$100 to get rid of a cold three or four days sooner?!!? I can certainly understand painful meningitis, but a cold? Come on!
OTOH, it certainly is great to see the hardworking medical geeks finally getting some recognition!
So, unlike almost every other interesting copyright lawsuit, this one actually has a law that can be pointed to; that actually specifies pretty closely what is the case here. The decss program is almost certainly a device to break encryption.
Might I humbly point out that there is also a provision de-criminalizing acts such as this for purposes of interoperability, which is certainly what DeCSS is all about.
Slashdot Mirror
Easiest way to migrate Windows from one drive/partition to another (short of using special software (such as DriveCopy or the thing that comes with the Maxtor drives), which is what we're talking about, right?) is to boot Windows and either open a DOS box or go to Start|Run, and type (assuming you're copying everything from the C: drive to the D: drive) "xcopy32 c:\*.* d:\ /h /e /c /k /v", if you have xcopy32 (I'm not sure when MS introduced it into Windows). Worked like a charm on my Win98 partition, and took, oh, between 10-30 minutes (can't remember for sure). This was when I moved from a 2 (!) gig drive to my present 27-gig drive.
(Score: 1, Offtopic)
[Moderation Totals: 1 Informative, 1 Offtopic, Total: 2]
I need to know, too! I'd like to start heating my grits with this! :)
#include "grain-of-salt.h" I agree, but it's not. This posting was my feeble attempt at humor. It's not. The point I was trying to make in my first post (/me ducks!) was that this will more-than-likely open doors for the broader acceptance of Linux in the corporate/enterprise/whatever-you-want-to-call-it environment, for the reasons stated in my other top-level post. And from reading the overall negative tone about this company's software in the other posts, companies with superior products ought to start saying, "Our software is better than theirs. Let's port ours!" Maybe I'm too idealistic. Try marketing-speak! "But there's no virus protection software for Linux..."
"Linux doesn't need AV software, but there's a package available if you need to scan for Windows viruses on your network.
The beauty of this, however, is that I can gain some benefits from our "model", too.
Keep in mind who this software is aimed at. It is not aimed at Joe Clue; it is aimed at anti-clueful managers to buy for their IT guys. There's some interesting-looking stuff there, but I was referring to simply the AV (InnoculateIT) package. While this provides some marginal (yet somewhat useful) functionality for Linux machines, the main application I see for it is virus scanning for alien platforms. It's my feeling that this can do nothing but help the acceptance of Linux in the corporate world.
YMMV, no guarantees are provided, void where prohibited, offer restricted in certain areas...
Let me tell you *WHY* it's a Good Thing...
Many shops are forced to keep an NT server around to provide virus-scanning services for the Windows desktops in the company. Because "Linux doesn't have viruses", the Linux boxen tend to act as a Typhoid Mary during a Windows virus infection.
It is precisely because of the fact that there is no virus-scanning software for Linux (for DOS/Win16/Win32 viruses) that many otherwise clueful PHBs will not adopt it. Software to scan for alien viruses on email attachments, etc, can only broaden the appeal of Linux.
It's also not a bad thing if they provide scanners for native viruses.
"What?!!?" you say. "Sure there is concept, but for all practical purposes, there are no Linux viruses. Besides, permissions protect us!"
True, my friend. Permissions protect the system from getting hosed. A virus can only affect your own files, or files that you have write permission to. Consider, though: the system, aside from configuration (which, I realize, is not insignificant), is on the original install media. What do you have under your account?
That's right. Your data, which is far more valuable.
It's true, any non-half-assed shop keeps backups... but let's face it, it's a real pain in the ass to restore. And managers hate to be inconvenienced. :)
Reserve some judgment on this, and try to be somewhat open-minded whilst reaching your own conclusions.
Many congratulations to both of you!
I have a shiny new 27 gig drive that my fiancee gave me for Christmas. Partitioned like so:
- /dev/hda1: ~16 megabytes, ext2, type 83, mounted on
/boot. This is where I store my kernel(s). LILO is mounted in the superblock of this partition and presents the boot menu from there. - /dev/hda2: ~13 gigs, vfat. Windows 98.
- /dev/hda3: ~13 gigs, ext2, type 83. Mounted on /
- /dev/hda4: ~128 megs, swap, type 82.
So you see, you neither need to rely on a Microsoft operating system to kick-start your Linux boot-up nor put LILO in your MBR. I'll grant you, though, that your method has some conveniences that mine lacks. (Namely, I was able to pick out my partitioning scheme before there was any data on the drive.)It's not my intention to come off as snotty or arrogant; I just wanted to point out there is an alternative.
Cheers.
Encryption (a la PGP) and envelopes are just different means to a similar end. I wonder if they would support some kind of "electronic envelope" technology.
Of course, the e-transmitted document would still have to be printed in a human-readable format before it's put in a envelope.
But is this really any different than trusting a few dozen strangers (from beginning to end) to handle your envelope without opening it? Of course, Federal law prohibits just such action. I would imagine that similar laws would be passed if this initiative goes forward. Besides, isn't what prevents more snooping right now (besides ethical considerations and illegality) sheer volume? I can see the USPS, if this catches on, acquiring newspaper-press-type machines that print the letter and envelope, fold it, and stuff it, all without ever being touched by a human hand.
I can see more interesting applications, though. For example, if you buy an item at auction (say, on eBay), and the seller is not a business, you cannot pay by credit card. If you don't have a checking account, or do not want to use a personal check, you must purchase a money order for ~$.60. Add $.33 for the stamp, and you've spent around a dollar to get the money to the seller, and you still have to wait for your mail to get to them, and for your item to get back. Now, imagine instead, you go to the USPS web site, type in your letter, enter the address and your credit card number, and the information is transmitted electronically to the closest post office to the receiver. There, they print the letter and the check, stuff them in an envelope, and deliver them for you the next day! You've just cut delivery time on your merchandise by approximately half, and if they could do it for ~$.50-$.75, they'd have the market on this one. This would work if you didn't have a credit card, too, by simply going to the post office and paying by cash.
How about having a terminal where you can read your email at the post office (and print to take home, if you choose) for those people who don't have computers and don't want the postal workers printing out their email?
Someone else said that a lot of corporate types like to send email to addresses in the format 'John.Smith@domainname.tld', but this would cause problems with common names. How about a format like 'JohnSmith.123MainStreet@AnytownCA.90210.usps.gov' ?
Just random thoughts...
OTOH, you *do* need to protect yourself with something like one of these licenses if you don't want to hassle with getting additional permission from each author; otherwise, it opens up a world of legal hurtin'. :) You might consider discussing with each contributor licensing terms and royalties upon submission of their code (or possibly even before they submit their code).
The Netscape Public License FAQ has good explanations of not only the NPL, but several other open-source licenses as well, including BSD, GPL, LGPL, and the Artistic License.
It's my understanding that the major differance between the LGPL and the GPL is simply the fact that you can link to GPL-incompatible libraries using the LGPL. Unless that's all you want to accomplish over the GPL, then there's really no major difference. 'Course, you could always make an Open-Source Copyrighted Undistributable Software Product. ;)
Good luck in your endeavor.
PS.
From the NPL FAQ:Okay, so this is offtopic, but shouldn't it be +1, Funny? Congratulations to the AC who posted this. I had a good laugh.
If I'm not mistaken, Gateway and others have, for a little while, at least, been giving a year's worth of "free" access with the purchase of certain models from them.
Like many others around here, I don't expect this trend to disappear any time soon. How many co-branded credit cards are there, anyway?
One positive thing about their service is that although you have to use Win32, you get a choice of email clients, which is more than I can say for MSN (yes, I fell for that trap). You see, I didn't like the way Outlook Express handled replies (the Right Way (IMO) is to put the reply and signature after the quoted text), so I downloaded Netscape and gave it a try. Imagine my surprise when it failed to connect and retrieve my email! I checked and compared between the MS and Netscape, and the only significant difference between the two configuration screens was an option for something called Secure Password Authentication. I later found a HOWTO-like document telling how to access MSN from Linux. (I became interested in Linux after I got my computer and fell for the trap.) It turns out that UUNet actually provides the connectivity. A couple items in the document explained things, though:
and (near the end): Things seem to be turning out all right, though, as I've just started a new job at an ISP (and get free access (even DSL after I've been there a little bit!)), and MSN has been unable to charge my credit card (tee hee!). (They haven't mentioned anything about the $400 yet. I've got to check my contract, though, after that Slashdot story a couple weeks back -- one of the postings told of someone in Columbus, OH who was able to get out of his contract with no strings attached!)Alas, I fear I've started to ramble. Perhaps a combination of sleep deprivation and caffeine OD.
--
This post brought to you by the elements N, H, C, and O, and the alkaloid caffeine.
Hehe, it seems that the Omega Particle from Star Trek is getting closer to being a reality. :)
Would you really want untrained persons administering your Net-connected LAN?
Take an NT guy and put him in front of a Linux box...
Or take your UNIX admin and put her in front of an NT box...
I think you can see where I'm headed with this. If you make it so simple that training is not needed, you wind up with something that provides no real value. If you build something that can do useful work, you'll need to be trained how to use it properly!
Sure, you can just sit down in front of the terminal and start typing away, but you'll not be getting the full benefit from the product.
Every software product requires training (in some fashion, whether that be classes, books, or whatever) to use properly. Especially servers.
Check out http://www.uwsg .indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9912.1/1397.ht ml. This was Linus' announcement on December 14 that they were aiming to ship 2.4 by the end of the first quarter this year.
I went to Byte and read this, and on 2 of the 4 pages of the article, there were banner ads for Win2K proclaiming how easy and integrate-able and reliable and stable it is. The ads had small movies on the right-hand side, interviewing supposed IT people. "We've been using Windows 2000 since Beta 3, and we haven't had to reboot our servers yet!" I wonder if this was accidental or if it was done intentionally (targeted advertising on MS's part?).
As the articles says, however, the cold is not the most exciting application. This will certainly do a lot of people a lot of good.
One thought, though... Who would pay $50-$100 to get rid of a cold three or four days sooner?!!? I can certainly understand painful meningitis, but a cold? Come on!
OTOH, it certainly is great to see the hardworking medical geeks finally getting some recognition!