It's a vendor's perogative to complain about anything. Any company would want sole-source contracts with anybody, not just Microsoft. Is it somehow better if Oracle was the one doing it? How about the small software shop down the street?
Nobody complains about TCP/IP being vendor specific. OpenDocument falls in this category. Word DOC and Excel XLS files do not.
When our laptop users come home, they're still outside out network.
Ah! Someone who gets it. Still, 80% of the comments to this thread are from people who think that they can control what they do not have physical control over.
I really hope these people aren't admins...though I know a few that act exactly like them and are stunned when I call them on it.
is the unpatched laptops that are fine while in the cacoon of the company LAN/WAN/VPN, but are all too often connected directly to the net by workers who take them home or road warriors who get on the net the second they hit the hotel room.
Don't trust any system that you don't control. Treat that part of the network as you would the rest of the Internet or other external networks you do not control. Much less heartache that way.
McAfee firewall personal edition (once?) blocked all access to 127.x.x.x and you could only enable this one IP at a time. So a firewall *can* protect you from yourself. Question is if you want it to (I didn't, my Java application suddenly could not be debugged anymore).
The use of a firewall and other tools assumes that you know what it is good for and how to use it.
If you don't, it can't protect you from yourself; that's what I meant.
Additionally, the firewall does not block anything. It enables you to use your network connection without knowing what might use it; it allows you and others to be blisfully unaware of how the connection may be used while blocking some requests. The adaptive firewalls that allow you to select what can/can not use the network are there mainly so that you can be told when something happens because you haven't prepaired for it. If you knew the systems you managed well enough, you wouldn't need to keep managing the firewall as the work would already be done.
That said, firewalls can be handy (as can other tools). Firewalls are not security in themselves. They are there to impose rules when you are not able to impose them yourself and like other automated tools will fail in strange ways in the right circumstances.
Spam is not the same thing as viruses though. Spam is a nuisance - it is malicious. Anyhoo, do go to Hardin's site and look at html-trap. Works very well and never needs updating - well, I update once per year. It Just Works (TM).
Thanks for the reference. I'll check it out.
That said, you sound quite confident. (Now, go read my last message!)
While adaptive filters work fairly well, they aren't fool proof. (I still get spam through my mail filters, even if I automatically tag mail to dead and invalid accounts as spam and then use those new filters to tag mail to valid accounts.)
I can't emphasise this enough: if you need to use a tool to secure something, what you're securing isn't secure to begin with or it is in an unsecurable environment. Change the environment or secure it.
The bad guys expect you to have filtering methods that may catch what they try and slip through. You have to expect them to know that you have these defenses and to make you confident that they are working when they slip in something another way.
That, and adaptive filters tend to flag useful tools as viruses even though they are there legitimately and have other uses (small VNC clients, SSH clients,... for example).
[Yes, I'm the one who posted the comment as an AC... I was at work.]
200 years ago, most of the USA was filled with people who could not read or write. Yet, they formed a country with great prosperity. And they believed in GOD. They thanked him for what they had.
Yeah, and I'm sure they would be proud of the current batch of believers. Really have served us well, haven't they?
Keep in mind that while software CMM is nearly identical to CMMI, CMMI is updated to correct some problems with CMM. CMMI is the replacement for CMM and handles entire organizations not just the software development part.
There was a rumor going around that there was one (maybe two) companies that qualified as CMMI level 5.
Or more.
The thing about CMMI is that the certifications are based on sample projects (or at level 3 and higher) samples from a whole company. It also depends on the integrity of the company and the auditing group (usually an external contract firm, though not always).
If your sample is crap, and you have documented it, you can get whatever level CMMI certification you want...while the rest of the business is a disorganized mess.
The *ONLY* way to verify that this is not happening is to request and review the audit details, and then check to see what parts of the company were skipped. Ofcourse, this assumes that the audit was on the up and up. If you doubt that even a little bit, do the auditing yourself and choose a sample that covers a few isolated areas.
CMMI -- like CMM -- can be botched, leading to useless results. Having a process does not mean that the process itself is worth a damn.
Here's an analogy that might help;
Few peaches are ever perfect. When they are, they are perfect for a limited time.
A bad farmer will grow some perfect peaches along with the inconsistant others. A consistant farmer will grow peaches of consistant quality...but may not get any perfect ones. A good farmer who is also consistant but flexable will have the best chance at growing more perfect peaches.
As I have stated, I do believe it was an apt comparison. So, I think in my case that I agree with this common objection.
If you want to call SCO assholes, do so. They aren't NAZIs.
If you want to take the high ground and say you have a valid analogy, you've got a real hard sell. Go ahead: What precisely do you think makes SCO and/or MySQL AB Nazi-like in an appropriate way? (That is, an insightful comparison vs. a just a rabid name calling match?)
On second thought, please do not answer...stop looking for a win here. You lost in the same way that you would have lost on Usenet. Yes, just stop using NAZIs unless you're really talking about assholes on that level; genocide, mass murder of the weak/handicapped, wide reaching political prosecution, and kicking off a world war with the intent of golbal conquest. The only society that even comes close to the scale is the USSR during Stalin's time...and there's a good case that Stalin's reign was worse. Either way, we're not talking SCO or MySQL on any even casul level.
So, what I'm rambling on about is that the OS side of the house is probably a reasonable group of people, trying to improve a Unix platform. The litigation side of the house is a bunch of worthless bastards. MySQL is working with the former.. even though it still required approval from the latter.
Those good people left a year or more ago and can be honored for the good work they have done. The ones that have remained decided to stay with criminals.
I will make it a special point of killing any potential job offer that may be made to anyone who was an SCO employee in this recient time frame. How you can cut them any slack on the unethical choice of staying with SCO when it is obvious how scummy they are I really don't understand.
They realise they're OS sucks, they realise Linux is kicking it's ass, and they know they can't win.
That SCO's Unix sucks or not doesn't matter one bit;
1. SCO is untrustworthy; they sue customers on bogus claims that will be or have been dismissed in court. (OK...I could be wrong for some of the remaining claims, but what's the chance of that?)
2. Software with similar designs exist that do not carry the threat of lawsuits attached to them.
3. That software is much better supported by different groups; higher quality support and better competition.
Keep in mind that while Microsoft can be accused of some nasty legal tricks and dirty dealings, they don't have the problems with issue 2 and 3 making it much harder to move away from thier products.
However, what's up with the format not even supporting embedding of images and charts?
Embedding Images and charts is not supported? Seems like someone forgot to tell Oasis to remove that from the spec, or OpenOffice.org forgot to cripple OOo!
What even made you think OpenDocument didn't support such basic features?
Can't someone fix this, because it allows MS to use the term 'less functional document format' quite legitimately, IMHO.
I gave it a quick try, and after the initial installation, Google Talk fired up and asked me for my ID and password. Not having one handy, I clicked on the menus and everything available except for web integration worked; select help and a web browser pops up with an odd URL. www.%1.com could not be found.
After closing Google Talk and running it manually, it first crashed. After killing off the Wine processes and waiting a couple minutes, it started again.
Here's what works and does not work (minus login as I don't have one);
Minimize: Odd behavior. Close: Ignored. Inbox: Mozilla reports www.%1.com could not be found. Settings: Pops up the settings dialog that works fine...except for the help button; www.%1.com could not be found. Help: www.%1.com could not be found.
Anyone else want to continue from here?
(Installed using Windows 2000 as the Wine version. Killed Wine to exit Google Talk with the command "killall -15 wineserver wine-preloader wine-pthread" executed 2x.)
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody complains about TCP/IP being vendor specific. OpenDocument falls in this category. Word DOC and Excel XLS files do not.
{BSEG} Very very cool. Thanks for the link!
(My sig hasn't changed in about a year or more -- for exactly the same reasons MJR is frustrated about the whole abuse of firewalls-as-security.)
Ah! Someone who gets it. Still, 80% of the comments to this thread are from people who think that they can control what they do not have physical control over.
I really hope these people aren't admins...though I know a few that act exactly like them and are stunned when I call them on it.
Don't trust any system that you don't control. Treat that part of the network as you would the rest of the Internet or other external networks you do not control. Much less heartache that way.
The use of a firewall and other tools assumes that you know what it is good for and how to use it.
If you don't, it can't protect you from yourself; that's what I meant.
Additionally, the firewall does not block anything. It enables you to use your network connection without knowing what might use it; it allows you and others to be blisfully unaware of how the connection may be used while blocking some requests. The adaptive firewalls that allow you to select what can/can not use the network are there mainly so that you can be told when something happens because you haven't prepaired for it. If you knew the systems you managed well enough, you wouldn't need to keep managing the firewall as the work would already be done.
That said, firewalls can be handy (as can other tools). Firewalls are not security in themselves. They are there to impose rules when you are not able to impose them yourself and like other automated tools will fail in strange ways in the right circumstances.
Spot on. Thus, my signature;
While you do have a propensity towards green women, the smell captin...how do you get past the smell?
Thanks for the reference. I'll check it out.
That said, you sound quite confident. (Now, go read my last message!)
I can't emphasise this enough: if you need to use a tool to secure something, what you're securing isn't secure to begin with or it is in an unsecurable environment. Change the environment or secure it.
The bad guys expect you to have filtering methods that may catch what they try and slip through. You have to expect them to know that you have these defenses and to make you confident that they are working when they slip in something another way.
That, and adaptive filters tend to flag useful tools as viruses even though they are there legitimately and have other uses (small VNC clients, SSH clients, ... for example).
[Yes, I'm the one who posted the comment as an AC ... I was at work.]
Yeah, and I'm sure they would be proud of the current batch of believers. Really have served us well, haven't they?
Orlenium?
Compaired to Venus? Mercury? Omicron Persei 8? I think not!
Keep in mind that while software CMM is nearly identical to CMMI, CMMI is updated to correct some problems with CMM. CMMI is the replacement for CMM and handles entire organizations not just the software development part.
Or more.
The thing about CMMI is that the certifications are based on sample projects (or at level 3 and higher) samples from a whole company. It also depends on the integrity of the company and the auditing group (usually an external contract firm, though not always).
If your sample is crap, and you have documented it, you can get whatever level CMMI certification you want...while the rest of the business is a disorganized mess.
The *ONLY* way to verify that this is not happening is to request and review the audit details, and then check to see what parts of the company were skipped. Ofcourse, this assumes that the audit was on the up and up. If you doubt that even a little bit, do the auditing yourself and choose a sample that covers a few isolated areas.
CMMI -- like CMM -- can be botched, leading to useless results. Having a process does not mean that the process itself is worth a damn.
Here's an analogy that might help;
Few peaches are ever perfect. When they are, they are perfect for a limited time.
A bad farmer will grow some perfect peaches along with the inconsistant others. A consistant farmer will grow peaches of consistant quality...but may not get any perfect ones. A good farmer who is also consistant but flexable will have the best chance at growing more perfect peaches.
If you want to call SCO assholes, do so. They aren't NAZIs.
If you want to take the high ground and say you have a valid analogy, you've got a real hard sell. Go ahead: What precisely do you think makes SCO and/or MySQL AB Nazi-like in an appropriate way? (That is, an insightful comparison vs. a just a rabid name calling match?)
On second thought, please do not answer...stop looking for a win here. You lost in the same way that you would have lost on Usenet. Yes, just stop using NAZIs unless you're really talking about assholes on that level; genocide, mass murder of the weak/handicapped, wide reaching political prosecution, and kicking off a world war with the intent of golbal conquest. The only society that even comes close to the scale is the USSR during Stalin's time...and there's a good case that Stalin's reign was worse. Either way, we're not talking SCO or MySQL on any even casul level.
The reason mentions of NAZIs equals flamebait is simple.
Those good people left a year or more ago and can be honored for the good work they have done. The ones that have remained decided to stay with criminals.
I will make it a special point of killing any potential job offer that may be made to anyone who was an SCO employee in this recient time frame. How you can cut them any slack on the unethical choice of staying with SCO when it is obvious how scummy they are I really don't understand.
That SCO's Unix sucks or not doesn't matter one bit;
1. SCO is untrustworthy; they sue customers on bogus claims that will be or have been dismissed in court. (OK...I could be wrong for some of the remaining claims, but what's the chance of that?)
2. Software with similar designs exist that do not carry the threat of lawsuits attached to them.
3. That software is much better supported by different groups; higher quality support and better competition.
Keep in mind that while Microsoft can be accused of some nasty legal tricks and dirty dealings, they don't have the problems with issue 2 and 3 making it much harder to move away from thier products.
Embedding Images and charts is not supported? Seems like someone forgot to tell Oasis to remove that from the spec, or OpenOffice.org forgot to cripple OOo!
What even made you think OpenDocument didn't support such basic features?
Can't someone fix this, because it allows MS to use the term 'less functional document format' quite legitimately, IMHO.
Go see for yourself; >There is nothing to fix in the beta. There is nothing to fix in the previous releases of OpenOffice.org.
Clever...I like it. Kills a slew of problems elegently.
What fat kid? I see a Google search page.
Either sell the game to Fudrucker's as a service or wrap it with ads...maybe Fudrucker's or (even better) Burger King's ads?
Almost perfect. Doesn't support OSX or Linux.
After closing Google Talk and running it manually, it first crashed. After killing off the Wine processes and waiting a couple minutes, it started again.
Here's what works and does not work (minus login as I don't have one);
Anyone else want to continue from here?
(Installed using Windows 2000 as the Wine version. Killed Wine to exit Google Talk with the command "killall -15 wineserver wine-preloader wine-pthread" executed 2x.)
Please READ the link provided about Cygwin and NT permissions.