Doh! Apologies. I must've been in my old Server=Workstation + extra registry entries state of mind. (Incidentally, anyone remember this scandal? Some folks at O'Reilly basically demonstrated that Workstation and Server are more or less identical. Didn't get nearly the press it deserved.)
Let me also say that, out of the box, Windows NT Workstation is useless. There's nothing you can do with it. You could run IE, that's about it. There is absolutely no functionality.
But Jerk, what about file sharing? (duck)
Seriously, though, NT does ship with Internet Information Server, which lets you run HTTP and FTP services out of the box. More or less. But that sure as hell doesn't justify the price tag involved.
For some reason, I feel the need to point out that remote viewing is pretty far removed (excuse the pun) from Castaneda-ish style mysticism, which, if memory serves, involves the ingestion of ritual psychrotropic drugs and communion with spirits. I don't know why I need to point this out, since I thought the article was drivel too.
By the way, didn't Castaneda later admit that his entire story was fabricated?
No way. When you shell out the bucks for an MS product, you're bound by the terms of the EULA... and so is Microsoft, which is what makes the whole OEM-bundled-refund-thingy so interesting. But Microsoft never volunteered to hand out their source for your money, and the fact that Novell and Netscape have decided to open up their source doesn't mean that MS has to. In a court of law, "no real reason not to" isn't a valid argument, and MS could easily make the claim that there are bunches of reasons not to (trade secrets, piracy, etc.)
As for the "violating integrity" arugument, I assume you mean that it might be doing something behind the scenes that you don't approve of, like sending out passwords w/o your consent. In which case, MS would likely say, "If you're that paranoid, sit behind a firewall, or don't buy it." Which, legally, is perfectly valid.
Of course, if Congress enacted law saying that all software must be open source, well, that'd make things much more interesting. But it'll never happen (thankfully).
Anyone who took a peek at The Road Ahead, or has read/listened to interviews with Gates realizes that the guy just isn't the most scintillating thinker in the world. He's boring. No one with a reasonable number of clues on the topic is going to shell out cash to hear Gates say things like, "The key to the managers of the future is digital connectivity and computer aptitude." Haber's review on Amazon (sorry, I can't link to the exact page) sums it up pretty well: "I can hear the trees screaming in my dreams."
Unfortunately, I'm an elitist, and I believe strongly that there are a lot of people out there who are completely without clue. They'll make sure the book sells.
I can't even begin to recount the problems I've had with HP Jet-Direct. It's badly broken. However, my best story runs something like this:
We provide dial-up access to an organization just next-door to ours, with a bunch of HP equipment. They have their own network (in fact, their own ISP), but they were unwilling to support their own employees, so... it's a long story. Anyway, about a year ago, we got a furious phone call from the organization's network admin saying that someone on our dialup was trying to crack their network. When we asked for some kind of log of the activity, he produced a firewall log tracking a bunch of SNMP access attempts to an IP address on their network.
So, I tracked the IP. Turns out it was an HP printer. The Jet-Direct software was too stupid to know it was connected via dial-up, and was tripping the firewall trying to get in. I took particular relish in informing them that the cracker was a fifty year old employee of theirs who was just trying to get her e-mail.
I don't remember Microsoft ever saying that they were considering supporting Linux. Otherwise, though, I wholeheartedly agree. This is certainly FUD at its finest.
Microsoft is walking the thinnest line on this one (with apologies to The Dead Milkmen). On the one hand, they have to make nice to the anti-trust folks and say, "No, really, Microsoft doesn't have monopoly power. Just look at the little upstart OS Linux, ready to come and eat our lunch." On the other hand, the corporate message is made pretty clear by "pundits" like Ed Muth:
The problem with that is there are fewer applications available for Linux, there's no long-term development road map, and there's a higher technical risk in using it.
What this really means: The problem with Linux is that Microsoft Office isn't available for it, there's no FUD team hyping it, and MS tech support (such as it is) won't bail you out if you get yourself in trouble with it.
If Microsoft doesn't want to make a seriously embarassing admission - namely, that there are valuable applications out there for Linux - they can't afford to consider Linux as a development platform, unless they don't consider Office to be an application with a signifigantly large following.
Not that it really has anything to do with your point, but: Jurgen Prochnow, who had a signifigant role in the movie (I haven't seen it yet, so I can't say whom he plays), also played the commander of a German WW2 U-boat in the unbelievably good movie, "Das Boot". Rent it, subtitled if you can. It'll make you claustrophobic.
Sample dialogue, translated to geek to shield the easily offended: "I was going to screw myself to a standstill, but now I'm in no condition to fsck."
If memory serves (which begs the question, why should it start now?), Apache is multi-process rather than multi-threaded. This is basically like saying that it can benefit from SMP, but not to as fine a degree as multi-threaded applications.
Unless you can get some kind of price break doing the SMP thing, or you're running lots of multithreaded applications, I wouldn't bother expending any serious effort to put together an SMP box.
When are you gonna realize...
on
Opera for Linux
·
· Score: 1
When are you people gonna realize that a nice GUI and Quality software are NOT mutually exclusive?
Of course they aren't. I don't like Opera because of its GUI. I like it because it's HTML standard compliant (more so than either of the heavy-hitters), it has an MDI and the ability to scale pages as they're being viewed, and because it has a footprint smaller than a gnat.
If noone is gonna use it, why do you mak it?
Clearly, a bunch of people here will. Read some of the posts. Read Wired's article on Opera. Read anything, for chrissakes.
Most non-denial of service attacks focus on either
exploiting a bug in a program running on a computer
exploiting someone being stupid about access to the system (bad passwords, for example).
Before you assume that there couldn't be any possible holes in the software you're running, consider that Rootshell reports that a couple very popular FTP daemons (including, probably, yours) can give up root access.
If you aren't sure, assume you're vulnerable. If you are sure, you're probably wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Doh! Apologies. I must've been in my old Server=Workstation + extra registry entries state of mind. (Incidentally, anyone remember this scandal? Some folks at O'Reilly basically demonstrated that Workstation and Server are more or less identical. Didn't get nearly the press it deserved.)
Heh heh. Heeeee.
Seriously, though, NT does ship with Internet Information Server, which lets you run HTTP and FTP services out of the box. More or less. But that sure as hell doesn't justify the price tag involved.
By the way, didn't Castaneda later admit that his entire story was fabricated?
As for the "violating integrity" arugument, I assume you mean that it might be doing something behind the scenes that you don't approve of, like sending out passwords w/o your consent. In which case, MS would likely say, "If you're that paranoid, sit behind a firewall, or don't buy it." Which, legally, is perfectly valid.
Of course, if Congress enacted law saying that all software must be open source, well, that'd make things much more interesting. But it'll never happen (thankfully).
Unfortunately, I'm an elitist, and I believe strongly that there are a lot of people out there who are completely without clue. They'll make sure the book sells.
We provide dial-up access to an organization just next-door to ours, with a bunch of HP equipment. They have their own network (in fact, their own ISP), but they were unwilling to support their own employees, so... it's a long story. Anyway, about a year ago, we got a furious phone call from the organization's network admin saying that someone on our dialup was trying to crack their network. When we asked for some kind of log of the activity, he produced a firewall log tracking a bunch of SNMP access attempts to an IP address on their network.
So, I tracked the IP. Turns out it was an HP printer. The Jet-Direct software was too stupid to know it was connected via dial-up, and was tripping the firewall trying to get in. I took particular relish in informing them that the cracker was a fifty year old employee of theirs who was just trying to get her e-mail.
Bloody Woody Allen ripoff. ;)
I don't remember Microsoft ever saying that they were considering supporting Linux. Otherwise, though, I wholeheartedly agree. This is certainly FUD at its finest.
If Microsoft doesn't want to make a seriously embarassing admission - namely, that there are valuable applications out there for Linux - they can't afford to consider Linux as a development platform, unless they don't consider Office to be an application with a signifigantly large following.
Not that it really has anything to do with your point, but: Jurgen Prochnow, who had a signifigant role in the movie (I haven't seen it yet, so I can't say whom he plays), also played the commander of a German WW2 U-boat in the unbelievably good movie, "Das Boot". Rent it, subtitled if you can. It'll make you claustrophobic.
Sample dialogue, translated to geek to shield the easily offended:
"I was going to screw myself to a standstill, but now I'm in no condition to fsck."
If memory serves (which begs the question, why should it start now?), Apache is multi-process rather than multi-threaded. This is basically like saying that it can benefit from SMP, but not to as fine a degree as multi-threaded applications.
Unless you can get some kind of price break doing the SMP thing, or you're running lots of multithreaded applications, I wouldn't bother expending any serious effort to put together an SMP box.
Of course they aren't. I don't like Opera because of its GUI. I like it because it's HTML standard compliant (more so than either of the heavy-hitters), it has an MDI and the ability to scale pages as they're being viewed, and because it has a footprint smaller than a gnat.
Clearly, a bunch of people here will. Read some of the posts. Read Wired's article on Opera. Read anything, for chrissakes.
I can't remember how many times I've had to dodge morons who were too busy playing with their car phones to watch where they were going. Now what?
"Uh, gee, officer, I'm sorry I was doing 40 over the speed limit on the shoulder. I'm doing a kernel re-compile and it's just driving me nuts..."
Sure, you're vulnerable. :)
Most non-denial of service attacks focus on either
Before you assume that there couldn't be any possible holes in the software you're running, consider that Rootshell reports that a couple very popular FTP daemons (including, probably, yours) can give up root access.
If you aren't sure, assume you're vulnerable. If you are sure, you're probably wrong.