If I have to say why, you're already treading on thin ice.
When I've run system scans and dumps on systems I do not manage, I've asked first and shown the admins what I do exactly -- and that's in my professional capacity.
As a student, make no doubts that you will not be treated well if they even think you are able to do this. The admins should get it, though others will not understand -- though if the admins did know WTF they were doing, they'd use HTTPS in the first place...right?
Instead, I'd point out that you are concerned since HTTP is an unsecure method and that others are likely to abuse your account and you want to know if the school is willing to take responsibility when that happens.
Scare them into action but do so from the point of view of someone who would not even look themselves.
In the meantime, use https:// in the URL yourself -- it will probably work -- and suggest friends do the same if it does.
So they're "bringing the Apple experience" by only letting you install the software they want you to. Doesn't that seem a little draconian? That's like if Microsoft changed Windows so you couldn't install Mozilla, or Apple only let you install products via their "software update" functionality. That's just not user friendly.
Does Dell, Toshiba, IBM, HP/Compaq, or Microsoft support software they don't ship?
You can install anything you want...they just do not support that additional software.
Over 800 packages are installed on my system, most from my distribution but some are not. A few select programs aren't even installed as packages, and I've done some customization of the kernel I'm running. Where should the line be drawn for support in my case?
As I see it, if they offer support beyond making sure the hardware functions with the supporting software they provide, that's a bonus.
If the USB ports don't work, and I'm using software and hardware they support, I expect them to figure it out. If I change things, the responsibility becomes mine. Anything else is someone else's job...not Element's.
...they aren't even questions. They are like religious statements of dogma. Like religions...
If you aren't in the group what you think or say or do does not matter since your opinion is somehow tainted.
Hold on a moment, since it gets worse as far as women's studies go. (I took a class...more below.)
Right or wrong, supported by evidence or not, the mere support by evidence or the rightness or wrongness comes from your perspective. In the case of women's studies, statements -- right/wrong/evidence/... -- are even 'male constructions'.
If you are a woman you can't give the male perspective completely...if you are a man, your whole 'male dominiated thought process that ignores shades of grey' works against you being able to comment effectively.
You might agree or disagree...it doesn't matter. You agree, that's nice. You disagree, you obviously don't understand you poor schmuck.
(The class on women's issues: Entering the class, I was sympathetic and thought I understood. Yet, as 1 of 2 men in the class I was constantly told any opinion I had -- including having an opinion at all -- was wrong since I should not comment since I'm not a woman. I left with a whole lot less sympathy for women after that.)
As Linux becomes easier to use and more popular, there are multiple reasons why it won't become a virus/trojan/spyware trap like Windows is.
SELinux and other extentions to Linux basically remove the traditional super user account.
Super user is a single account that can do everything. (By default, super user is named "root" on *nix and administrator for the NT branch of Windows.) When it goes away, breaking in and causing system-wide changes will be much more difficult by default.
Right now, it is trivial to convince many Windows users to install bad software or to run apps they shouldn't. Over time, that will change...though other angles will still be open to these programs; weak protocol/APIs.
In the meantime, Linux (not having making it easy to install this garbage) is becomming harder to penetrate since the main way to get things running is to force it on to the system or to actually behave and to get it running because the program is actually useful. By the time that Linux is super popular, the benifit of decades of hardening that Unix systems have supported will be even stronger, not weaker.
The gaps to fill are much smaller.
Under Windows, most of the freeware+spyware apps for Windows are there since Windows doesn't provide a feature.
Linux -- with KDE, Gnome, and Mozilla/Firefox -- often provide most of these creature comforts and it can be argued that there may be too many features (thus the Gnome simplification changes -- if you agree with them or not).
If a need arises for a minor utility, chances are it will be incorporated into KDE/Gnome/Mozilla/Firefox/... elimitating the teaser app that carries the spyware along with it.
Very protective community.
If a version of spyware becomes sucessful under Linux, chances are this will annoy enough people that they will change the design of the software (KDE/Gnome/Mozilla...) so that -- like pop-ups in browsers now -- the spyware will become largely ineffective and sterile.
There are no commercial interests to ensure that this type of dammage is ignored. It will be routed around and not just for one specific annoying piece of spyware either; for everything in that class.
Give them an account named "install" that has admin, and explain that it's very dangerous to use that for anything but installing store-bought CD software.
While I agree that's a smart tactic for Windows users out of necessity, it's sad that it is necessary.
You are right, but the only sane way to do this is if you are managing many similar systems that can be audited -- or you just want to be sure and don't mind how much time is involved in doing the audit.
The only methods are to stop using Windows (seriously) or do a wipe out and reinstall of registry settings and system + program directories on a regular basis. Just nuke everything that isn't in a small set of protected data. Setting up drive D: to handle all data and nuking C:\ might be the way to go without a full audit.
None of this is without pain, though if you want certianty and don't want to spend all your time on uncertian tools like spyware trackers, this is the only way I can think of doing it.
Note to everyone else: Blocking next to everything at the router/firewall or using tools to find know-bad software only shifts the problem temporarily. Eventually, the bad guys will just work around your temporary methods...and you'll be back at either tweaking your router and/or updating software. When you do, it will be too late; the bad guys will have already had a chance to get a foot hold.
The only other general tactic that should work is limting the ability to install new software and working from a known-OK white list. Easier to do under *nix, harder to get away with under Windows (though not impossible).
I hate to break it to the hack and slashdot crowd, but Testing is actually a whole career in itself, and the application of different testing processes and methods to different projects is a critical part of ensuring projects succeed.
Agreed. I can impress someone with my knowledge and professionalism, but when they ask what languages I can program in and I state "I'm not a developer", they just don't get it. That I can whip a program up is one thing...that I know that I'm not the person to do that seems to lead to puzzlement.
These days, testing (and CM) is so far off the radar for most folks that it is no longer considered an issue. Yet, developers are constantly required to know all details of the specs and to deliver code that does not immediately fall apart. Some can, but very few can do it rapidly.
The extra burden of detailed testing -- work that the developers are usually not suited for or have time for anyway -- does not make for a productive environment. Limited testing is OK though full testing by development is a distraction -- both VV&T and development groups know it.
That said, initial unit tests of the core services can be the responsibility of the development group, though it should never fall to the same person writing the code being tested. The unit test framework will be incomplete and faulty since the developer does not have the proper distance from the code they are testing.
A skilled VV&T developer can do the job much better, though time for that person to write code to test the developer's work is usually not allocated in the schedule...even if such a person is hired at all.
(Case in point: I was hired last year to automate testing and test 2 applications...10 months later, and here I am having tested about 20 applications and have not written any automated test sripts. Yes, I warned them that it takes a specific type of environment to support automated testing, one that can allow substantial amounts of time and effort to creating and maintaing those scripts, and I didn't see that environment. Yes, they understood and said 'do it anyway'. Yep, that worked.)
Wow! The NSA also thinks that Windows can be made pretty damn secure!!
[Skip a few replies]
> Obviously you have no f-ng clue what SELinux is don't you?
No, I do. I'm just pointing out that that because the NSA released some tools, your OS doesn't automatically meet military specs. It's not a valid argument.
If you wrote the first comment I quote about, read on...otherwise you can ignore the following.
First off, you changed your tune from 'windows can be secured' to a totally different argument.
While your new argument is true on it's face... [insert security mantra here; you know what it is if you have a clue]... and RTOS is likely very good (haven't looked it over myself) SELinux is vastly superior to anything MS currently offers no matter how you lock it down;
All things being equal as possible, nobody can secure Windows to the same level that SELinux can be secured without adding in extra levels of security that SELinux neither needs or requires.
Tools -- misused/misapplied/misconfigured -- are useless. Good tools properly used, though, trump OK tools properly used. Windows is OK and even poor when it comes to security. SELinux is damn sweet.
Also there is no 'magic bullet'. Wish there was. You will always be chasing whatever they dream up next. Your scripts will always be mutating just as much as that industry mutates.
Here's your bullet, though you've probably already rejected it as too much of a PITA...and it is a PITA. If you manage enough machines, it is worth the effort since it can catch everything before any other specialized programs will.
Checksum base machine configurations, file by file. Dump registry settings. Keep all systems in sync. When something doesn't match, force it back to the standard config while researching the differences. When new files or settings appear, research them as well and either ban (delete) or add them to the base configuration or white list. Of course, improvise and exapand on these suggestions.
In email terms, focus on your white list not on chasing down every variation of "M@ke $$$ Quickly".
Checksums: Fast Sum, md5summer, and MD5Deep are some tools to take a look at.
Another one of their schemes offers to download a program that will automatically sync your system time, which is useful to most people who notice that consumer PCs are usually pathetic at keeping a system time. However, I personally use the adware-free Automachron which provides the same useful function.
Side note: I find it strange that a special app has to be used for Windows to just set the clock automatically using a time server.
That feature has been part of network logins under Windows (if enabled) and it is the default under different *nix systems ('real' network or dialup/internet).
Why doesn't Windows have a check box in the clock dialog that says 'syncronize time to a time server' or 'enable network time protocol'?
The PCs were 3 years old and had earlier versions of Windows on them. A Pentium 166 was 'new' 8 years ago in 1996, not 3 years ago in 2001. The OS typically used on the boxes 3 years ago was Windows 98 though Windows 98 was being discontinuted at the time and Windows ME was being forced on (only old copies of Win98 could be bought if available).
The thing is if Longhorn isn't secure out of the box they will be. That means no open services binding to interfaces other than 127.0.0.1. Whilst this won't kill them outright people are now starting to learn just how fundamental some of the problems with windows are and just how futile it is to try and keep a system up to date on a dial up modem.
You would think that were true, but no, no, sadly it isn't.
I spent weeks attempting to convince the chief system admin to do scans of his systems and to minimize servers and software being used. I even asked him if it were OK if I did a scan to show him the results. "Sure, go ahead." was his comment, similing, as if I just told a joke. Funny HA HA it wasn't.
The Nessus scan of a 'locked down, single functon' server that he had 'secured' -- a machine that actually had multiple unused default services -- resulted in finding 15 serious issues and a few dozen more that were recommended to be looked at. His reaction? "It's good enough."
I don't even know if loosing his job over this would wake him up. His main concern was following a single routine and not changing it...and making his life more complex with system audits really was neither interesting or important.
If Microsoft changed things, he'd learn just enough. If they turned off services that caused him to have to work to turn them back on, he'd be irked not appreciative. If he could save some effort by using an older version of Windows or not upgrading, he'd do that.
Mostly a good guy, though not interested in the slightest in improving his skills.
Look, people need to be aware that Linux exists, sure, but ease of use IS A PROBLEM. If the average person used to Windows tried to install a distro of Linux on their system, they'd run away from the computer screaming (with the exception perhaps of something like Xandros). And then they'd swear never to touch it again.
Windows is almost never installed by the user of the machine or anyone that the user knows. Linux is typically installed by the user of the machine or someone they know. Repeat after me;
Windows is almost always pre-installed.
Linux is almost always not pre-installed.
Most Windows users -- including technical ones -- refuse to reinstall Windows or to install it from scratch, would rather have someone else do it, or will use the pre-configured image restore CD that came bundled with the specific set of hardware they have.
Linux is trivial to install on most machines. Windows is only slightly easier and often requires driver CDs to complete the job, along with application CDs and other tools like anti-virus programs. Many of the necessary tools for Windows aren't used or even considered under Linux...we don't need virus detectors!
To snipe at Linux specifically on an issue that it performs poorly on compared to Windows...when Windows does not perform well either is not very fair.
The main differences are that Windows is pre-installed and most people use it with lax security (run as administrator) because it's easier and they don't care, thinking that the firewall and virus detection programs should do all the work.
I happen to think you're dead wrong. If ease of use weren't attractive to the average consumer, why did AOL dominate?
Bulk CD distribution and heavy advertising.
Before that, chat rooms. (Seriously: How do you think they built up the ability to sent out so many CDs?)
The ease of use part is only to reduce per-user support costs and to make them used to doing things the AOL way. That it made it 'easy' was not the primary goal.
Thanks for the comments...I'll be remembering them for quite a while. Novell is almost on the right track with the adds running at this year's Brainshare. A little too much rah-rah-rah, though some of them are quite nice. Here's a couple that seem to have some staying power;
I did some research a few months ago, attempting to get a group to use a Wiki, and one reasonable set of questions that kept on comming up were;
Do our current documents (MS Office) show up in the same basic format -- and can we use similar tools?
If we want to switch from one Wiki or CMS to another, how do we do it?
After some research, I found that for the basics it was simple;
The pages are typically HTML and can be bulk converted.
The formatting could be handled by using a fairly new browser and the 'rich text' edit extentions.
On the down side...
The number of Wikis with 'rich text' support was small.
The setup time for Twiki was excessive and complex; I never got a demo system set up unless I used the exact same base data files as the Twiki site and cut out the data from there. This violates CM procedures, so I couldn't get approval for Twiki.
The setup time for other Wikis was minor, though they tended to have very few of the features Twiki had.
Not all the content could be converted to/from other systems, so there would be some data loss.
Now that I'm on other projects, does anyone have tips/suggestions/resouces even if to say "thems da' breaks"?
I'd love to have something ready to go so that the struggle to get these tools used will not be so great. (If it is 'pretty' that would be a plus, as Twiki's default ugly almost killed it off during the first round of review.)
A tip for the newbie NT Admins out there -- go to www.sysinternals.com and get regmon and filemon.
Hell, get all of the tools there. Also, Dependency Walker. If you have *nix experience, you know what a dependency is. Windows does not manage dependencies, leading to a vast number of problems.
Note: The tools on sysinternals.com are often flagged as viruses/trojans by some virus detectors. Thus, the tools will be erased or shuffled off to another directory around the time you place them on the drive. Very annoying.
That they are flagged as viri is partially true, though. Trojans and viri do tend to bundle these tools because they are so powerful...though the tools by themselves are very handy and are not designed for evil (think automobile; sunday driver vs. GTA wannabe).
The/. Summary says the "Full new file system feature has been moved to Blackcomb" and while true, it is misleading. The article actually says WinFS is still going to be in the next version of Windows (which is what it is talking about), it simply won't work over the network, meaning file shares won't work in the same way.
Maybe an article says that...though the one linked doesn't mention WinFS.
Re:WinFS WILL be in the next version, just no netw
on
Microsoft Clips Longhorn
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
NTFS supports symlinks now, but only one type of link, and it's difficult to implement in comparison to *nix. The best use of it is to support them in an application and have the app manage the links.
I attempted to get a group of admins to use them to make two bickering departments happy about file locations and they basically laughed at me (^)...using shortcuts instead as "good enough".
This, btw, did not settle the arguments since neither liked shortcuts and still "couldn't find anything".
(^. I would feel insulted or take them seriously, though the same admins thought it was OK to use the default database admin account name and the default -- *blank* -- password on the primary image database server. It only processed 50,000 checks up to and beyond $100,000 USD, so maybe they were right to not bother with a password -- such trivial amounts after all.:-/ )
Slashdot Mirror
Do *NOT* follow that advice.
Follow this advice.
If I have to say why, you're already treading on thin ice.
When I've run system scans and dumps on systems I do not manage, I've asked first and shown the admins what I do exactly -- and that's in my professional capacity.
As a student, make no doubts that you will not be treated well if they even think you are able to do this. The admins should get it, though others will not understand -- though if the admins did know WTF they were doing, they'd use HTTPS in the first place...right?
Instead, I'd point out that you are concerned since HTTP is an unsecure method and that others are likely to abuse your account and you want to know if the school is willing to take responsibility when that happens.
Scare them into action but do so from the point of view of someone who would not even look themselves.
In the meantime, use https:// in the URL yourself -- it will probably work -- and suggest friends do the same if it does.
...a crowbar, a flame thrower, and a time machine...I don't ask for much...I don't mind doing the work. In fact, it would be a pleasure.
I've built all of my desktop x86 systems, and tweak just about everything. I have installed a few different distributions on my Dell lattitude CPx.
As the Dell laptop is getting long in the tooth, I've considered getting a new laptop, and to be honest my ranking is currently;
So, if even I am seriously considering buying from them someone who doesn't like to tweak things as much is that much more likely.
Does Dell, Toshiba, IBM, HP/Compaq, or Microsoft support software they don't ship?
You can install anything you want...they just do not support that additional software.
Over 800 packages are installed on my system, most from my distribution but some are not. A few select programs aren't even installed as packages, and I've done some customization of the kernel I'm running. Where should the line be drawn for support in my case?
As I see it, if they offer support beyond making sure the hardware functions with the supporting software they provide, that's a bonus.
If the USB ports don't work, and I'm using software and hardware they support, I expect them to figure it out. If I change things, the responsibility becomes mine. Anything else is someone else's job...not Element's.
If you aren't in the group what you think or say or do does not matter since your opinion is somehow tainted.
Hold on a moment, since it gets worse as far as women's studies go. (I took a class...more below.)
Right or wrong, supported by evidence or not, the mere support by evidence or the rightness or wrongness comes from your perspective. In the case of women's studies, statements -- right/wrong/evidence/... -- are even 'male constructions'.
If you are a woman you can't give the male perspective completely...if you are a man, your whole 'male dominiated thought process that ignores shades of grey' works against you being able to comment effectively.
You might agree or disagree...it doesn't matter. You agree, that's nice. You disagree, you obviously don't understand you poor schmuck.
(The class on women's issues: Entering the class, I was sympathetic and thought I understood. Yet, as 1 of 2 men in the class I was constantly told any opinion I had -- including having an opinion at all -- was wrong since I should not comment since I'm not a woman. I left with a whole lot less sympathy for women after that.)
I'm stunned when they listen at all.
Super user is a single account that can do everything. (By default, super user is named "root" on *nix and administrator for the NT branch of Windows.) When it goes away, breaking in and causing system-wide changes will be much more difficult by default.
In the meantime, Linux (not having making it easy to install this garbage) is becomming harder to penetrate since the main way to get things running is to force it on to the system or to actually behave and to get it running because the program is actually useful. By the time that Linux is super popular, the benifit of decades of hardening that Unix systems have supported will be even stronger, not weaker.
Under Windows, most of the freeware+spyware apps for Windows are there since Windows doesn't provide a feature.
Linux -- with KDE, Gnome, and Mozilla/Firefox -- often provide most of these creature comforts and it can be argued that there may be too many features (thus the Gnome simplification changes -- if you agree with them or not).
If a need arises for a minor utility, chances are it will be incorporated into KDE/Gnome/Mozilla/Firefox/... elimitating the teaser app that carries the spyware along with it.
If a version of spyware becomes sucessful under Linux, chances are this will annoy enough people that they will change the design of the software (KDE/Gnome/Mozilla...) so that -- like pop-ups in browsers now -- the spyware will become largely ineffective and sterile.
There are no commercial interests to ensure that this type of dammage is ignored. It will be routed around and not just for one specific annoying piece of spyware either; for everything in that class.
While I agree that's a smart tactic for Windows users out of necessity, it's sad that it is necessary.
You are right, but the only sane way to do this is if you are managing many similar systems that can be audited -- or you just want to be sure and don't mind how much time is involved in doing the audit.
The only methods are to stop using Windows (seriously) or do a wipe out and reinstall of registry settings and system + program directories on a regular basis. Just nuke everything that isn't in a small set of protected data. Setting up drive D: to handle all data and nuking C:\ might be the way to go without a full audit.
None of this is without pain, though if you want certianty and don't want to spend all your time on uncertian tools like spyware trackers, this is the only way I can think of doing it.
Note to everyone else: Blocking next to everything at the router/firewall or using tools to find know-bad software only shifts the problem temporarily. Eventually, the bad guys will just work around your temporary methods...and you'll be back at either tweaking your router and/or updating software. When you do, it will be too late; the bad guys will have already had a chance to get a foot hold.
The only other general tactic that should work is limting the ability to install new software and working from a known-OK white list. Easier to do under *nix, harder to get away with under Windows (though not impossible).
Agreed. I can impress someone with my knowledge and professionalism, but when they ask what languages I can program in and I state "I'm not a developer", they just don't get it. That I can whip a program up is one thing...that I know that I'm not the person to do that seems to lead to puzzlement.
These days, testing (and CM) is so far off the radar for most folks that it is no longer considered an issue. Yet, developers are constantly required to know all details of the specs and to deliver code that does not immediately fall apart. Some can, but very few can do it rapidly.
The extra burden of detailed testing -- work that the developers are usually not suited for or have time for anyway -- does not make for a productive environment. Limited testing is OK though full testing by development is a distraction -- both VV&T and development groups know it.
That said, initial unit tests of the core services can be the responsibility of the development group, though it should never fall to the same person writing the code being tested. The unit test framework will be incomplete and faulty since the developer does not have the proper distance from the code they are testing.
A skilled VV&T developer can do the job much better, though time for that person to write code to test the developer's work is usually not allocated in the schedule...even if such a person is hired at all.
(Case in point: I was hired last year to automate testing and test 2 applications...10 months later, and here I am having tested about 20 applications and have not written any automated test sripts. Yes, I warned them that it takes a specific type of environment to support automated testing, one that can allow substantial amounts of time and effort to creating and maintaing those scripts, and I didn't see that environment. Yes, they understood and said 'do it anyway'. Yep, that worked.)
I noticed the follow on comments. Seemed like a PITA...not just point and click but a dozen steps.
Even if not, I'm surprised that MS took so long to add such a basic and important function.
[Skip a few replies]
> Obviously you have no f-ng clue what SELinux is don't you?
No, I do. I'm just pointing out that that because the NSA released some tools, your OS doesn't automatically meet military specs. It's not a valid argument.
If you wrote the first comment I quote about, read on...otherwise you can ignore the following.
First off, you changed your tune from 'windows can be secured' to a totally different argument.
While your new argument is true on it's face ... [insert security mantra here; you know what it is if you have a clue] ... and RTOS is likely very good (haven't looked it over myself) SELinux is vastly superior to anything MS currently offers no matter how you lock it down;
All things being equal as possible, nobody can secure Windows to the same level that SELinux can be secured without adding in extra levels of security that SELinux neither needs or requires.
Tools -- misused/misapplied/misconfigured -- are useless. Good tools properly used, though, trump OK tools properly used. Windows is OK and even poor when it comes to security. SELinux is damn sweet.
Here's your bullet, though you've probably already rejected it as too much of a PITA...and it is a PITA. If you manage enough machines, it is worth the effort since it can catch everything before any other specialized programs will.
Checksum base machine configurations, file by file. Dump registry settings. Keep all systems in sync. When something doesn't match, force it back to the standard config while researching the differences. When new files or settings appear, research them as well and either ban (delete) or add them to the base configuration or white list. Of course, improvise and exapand on these suggestions.
In email terms, focus on your white list not on chasing down every variation of "M@ke $$$ Quickly".
Checksums: Fast Sum, md5summer, and MD5Deep are some tools to take a look at.
Side note: I find it strange that a special app has to be used for Windows to just set the clock automatically using a time server.
That feature has been part of network logins under Windows (if enabled) and it is the default under different *nix systems ('real' network or dialup/internet).
Why doesn't Windows have a check box in the clock dialog that says 'syncronize time to a time server' or 'enable network time protocol'?
The PCs were 3 years old and had earlier versions of Windows on them. A Pentium 166 was 'new' 8 years ago in 1996, not 3 years ago in 2001. The OS typically used on the boxes 3 years ago was Windows 98 though Windows 98 was being discontinuted at the time and Windows ME was being forced on (only old copies of Win98 could be bought if available).
Courts say...no! Microsoft corporation, on the other hand, has been found to be not only a monopoly but an illegal one at that.
You would think that were true, but no, no, sadly it isn't.
I spent weeks attempting to convince the chief system admin to do scans of his systems and to minimize servers and software being used. I even asked him if it were OK if I did a scan to show him the results. "Sure, go ahead." was his comment, similing, as if I just told a joke. Funny HA HA it wasn't.
The Nessus scan of a 'locked down, single functon' server that he had 'secured' -- a machine that actually had multiple unused default services -- resulted in finding 15 serious issues and a few dozen more that were recommended to be looked at. His reaction? "It's good enough."
I don't even know if loosing his job over this would wake him up. His main concern was following a single routine and not changing it...and making his life more complex with system audits really was neither interesting or important.
If Microsoft changed things, he'd learn just enough. If they turned off services that caused him to have to work to turn them back on, he'd be irked not appreciative. If he could save some effort by using an older version of Windows or not upgrading, he'd do that.
Mostly a good guy, though not interested in the slightest in improving his skills.
Windows is almost never installed by the user of the machine or anyone that the user knows. Linux is typically installed by the user of the machine or someone they know. Repeat after me;
Windows is almost always pre-installed.
Linux is almost always not pre-installed.
Most Windows users -- including technical ones -- refuse to reinstall Windows or to install it from scratch, would rather have someone else do it, or will use the pre-configured image restore CD that came bundled with the specific set of hardware they have.
Linux is trivial to install on most machines. Windows is only slightly easier and often requires driver CDs to complete the job, along with application CDs and other tools like anti-virus programs. Many of the necessary tools for Windows aren't used or even considered under Linux...we don't need virus detectors!
To snipe at Linux specifically on an issue that it performs poorly on compared to Windows...when Windows does not perform well either is not very fair.
The main differences are that Windows is pre-installed and most people use it with lax security (run as administrator) because it's easier and they don't care, thinking that the firewall and virus detection programs should do all the work.
Bulk CD distribution and heavy advertising.
Before that, chat rooms. (Seriously: How do you think they built up the ability to sent out so many CDs?)
The ease of use part is only to reduce per-user support costs and to make them used to doing things the AOL way. That it made it 'easy' was not the primary goal.
"Worm: What butterflies really are when you look past their colorful wings."
The next one is more Novell-specific, though it applies to OSS in general as well.
more
Do our current documents (MS Office) show up in the same basic format -- and can we use similar tools?
If we want to switch from one Wiki or CMS to another, how do we do it?
After some research, I found that for the basics it was simple;
The pages are typically HTML and can be bulk converted.
The formatting could be handled by using a fairly new browser and the 'rich text' edit extentions.
On the down side...
The number of Wikis with 'rich text' support was small.
Not all the content could be converted to/from other systems, so there would be some data loss.
Now that I'm on other projects, does anyone have tips/suggestions/resouces even if to say "thems da' breaks"?
I'd love to have something ready to go so that the struggle to get these tools used will not be so great. (If it is 'pretty' that would be a plus, as Twiki's default ugly almost killed it off during the first round of review.)
Hell, get all of the tools there. Also, Dependency Walker. If you have *nix experience, you know what a dependency is. Windows does not manage dependencies, leading to a vast number of problems.
Note: The tools on sysinternals.com are often flagged as viruses/trojans by some virus detectors. Thus, the tools will be erased or shuffled off to another directory around the time you place them on the drive. Very annoying.
That they are flagged as viri is partially true, though. Trojans and viri do tend to bundle these tools because they are so powerful...though the tools by themselves are very handy and are not designed for evil (think automobile; sunday driver vs. GTA wannabe).
2010 - 2005 = 5.
2010: 'full-featured file system' at end of decade (2009), add in a couple quarters of slippage and it gets pushed to 2010.
2005: A year from now when ReiserFS has what is promoted in the 'full-featured file system'.
Maybe an article says that...though the one linked doesn't mention WinFS.
I attempted to get a group of admins to use them to make two bickering departments happy about file locations and they basically laughed at me (^)...using shortcuts instead as "good enough".
This, btw, did not settle the arguments since neither liked shortcuts and still "couldn't find anything".
(^. I would feel insulted or take them seriously, though the same admins thought it was OK to use the default database admin account name and the default -- *blank* -- password on the primary image database server. It only processed 50,000 checks up to and beyond $100,000 USD, so maybe they were right to not bother with a password -- such trivial amounts after all. :-/ )