The BIOS is a legacy piece of crap that serves practically no purpose, but to boot the OS.
Let's hammer that home, shall we? Instead of a minimialist BIOS setup, Award and Asus have decided that the following features are more important than conextual help on the P4PE (rev. 1.03) board;
Audio POST messages; yep, it speaks the error messages.
Graphical boot logo; yep, an advertisement for Asus.
6 types of power on options:
AC power loss restart,
wake/power up on external modem,
power up on PCI card,
power up by PS/2 keyboard,
by mouse,
Automatic power up each day at a specific time,
Automatic power up by a specific day of the month with alarm
...yet, no boot option for USB or firewire devices; no boot off of that USB pen or external CDRW.
That's not all...
Turn off some of the ports (game, serial,...) and the system either won't boot or it will disable other seemingly unrelated ports.
Automatic boot into BIOS setup after boot. This is supposed to reset CPU timings if the system crashes due to overclocking. Please. This time around, unlike the old versions of this misguided feature, it is possible to disable it.
...speaking of disabling things, the boot sector virus detection scheme never made any sense to me. How many years has it been since there has been any boot sector viri -- yet the damn thing has to be turned off much of the time.
Unfortunatly the CLIENT wants a whole lot of fuss and toss. The client doesn't want to pay a lot of money for it - so when told "we'll lose 2% of the audience if we don't double the budget to make it Mac compat" he'll say "fuck that! who uses Macs anyways - Gays???"
Whatever the client wants, the client gets...or if you're good, convince them otherwise with a minor bit of proding.
That said, the "double the budget" part is nonsense. Good design and good practices should be second nature.
The guy who posted "write it in Mozilla, test it in IE" had it right -- and his tip has the benifit of covering not only that version of Mozilla and that version of IE but likely other versions of each as well...not to count other browsers. Include liberal use of W3C tests during development and actual tests with a dozen different browsers before deployment and you take care of any obvioius mistakes.
To get a good idea about how solid your efforts are does not require following all paths through the system, though a professional should at a minimum kick the tires even for a cheap client and warn the unreasonable, kneck breathing, controlling, ones.
Sunspire replaced the parts they didn't make and closed it, as they are fully legally and morally within thier right to do. They made it. They own the copyright. They can do as they wish.
Since Tux Racer has been continuously in the top Sourceforge downloads, and others had made modest GPLed contributions, Sunspire figured that selling it would be a good idea. I can't fault that logic. An odd thing happened though. Some folks that might not understand or agree with the GPL felt slighted when a closed and for-pay branch appeared and refused to pay for it out of some odd sense of principle (or being cheap).
The GPLed version is still available so nothing is stopping anyone from making improvements to it.
That said, so far, the commercial version is quite a bit better. Commercial Tux Racer is $15. It runs under both Linux (x86) and Windows. I bought 2 copies, one for me and one for a niece of mine and I consider the price a bargain.
Well, IMHO Tux Racer's textures are a lot better looking than Soul Rider's.
The whole spit and polish of Tux Racer (commercial or GPLed) is much nicer. That's not to say that Soul Ride is bad, it's just not in the same legue as Tux Racer.
I like your idea of indexing the common paths back to typical senders and using that cone of paths as one way to validate. If that could be pulled off, I'll be very happy. It might work well as an extra bit of logic for the Bayesian filters that are being tweaked right now.
I'm less psyched about filtering at the router (mail server). Two words: arms race.
Having each mail server filter on content along the chain would work in the short run, as soon as it became too effective, the spamers would think of ways to eeek by the ratio. Lower the ratio, so would the spammers till you end up filtering out mail that is legitimate.
(That, and I'd hate to have to spec a system that would do that filtering without adding substantial delays!)
Beyond adding a cone of paths like you first described, and figuring out other technical ways to deal with this, I see a couple things that will probably be required in the future;
Change or replace our existing email systems so that when the headers (the past routing information) is forged, it is obvious. Then, discard the forgeries.
(Ob comment: Yes this is a big deal, involves pain, is likely not backward compatable, and should be thought out very carefully.)
Search, locate, and find companies who buy spamming services and sue the hell out of them. Optionally: Have Guido/Jimmy/... 'ave ah talk wit im'.
During a trip to an INS regional office, I was briefly shown the green card printing machine. (The cards aren't green and they look similar to a drivers licence.)
Taped to the window was a very official looking green card for a Mrs. Janet Reno.
Why have you installed every flavor of Windows? and how recently, where did you administer these networks.
Aka: "Liar! Ve Vant Answers!"
Ever try installing Novel, I have, on several servers, you better know what your doing like I did or your going to hell in a hand bag, but linux easier to install than windows?
Novel means...what irt Linux or Windows installation issues?
I don't think so, I mean it says things like HD3/1 and such for partitions, that scares people, they want to see, C drive has this much data, can I install here?
A few comments;
If the machine is new, pressing enter when prompted will install any full-featured Linux distribution. It has been this way for a few years.
On a machine with an existing OS, some distributions will even identify and safely repartition the drive for you. The exsting OS will be there, on a smaller partition.
Install any version of Windows on a machine that already has an operating system on it. Does it allow you to retain the old OS? Is it easy to choose the old OS on boot?
The "C" drive doesn't exist. First off, it's a part of a drive unit -- a 'partion'. Drive lettering is a fiction that even Microsoft is moving away from since it makes no sense; 26 partitions before you encounter odd workarounds, partitions 'move' when new partitions are added or removed.
Oh and as an administrator you probably have no concept what is easy for the standard user, because you don't remember what it is like to be one.
Administer Windows/Linux/MacOS/...? Isn't that what system administrators do?
I know this often gets me, but when I talk to my friends at other companies that do business with my consulting firm then I understand what a real end user is.
A real end user doesn't do what you're demanding. Hell, half my technically minded friends (including DBAs, system adminstrators, and guru-level developers) configure thier own systems. They expect someone else to do it.
It seems like your main complaint is that you have to use something new and you hate the change in your routine.
I'm sorry, but Lotus Notes is DEFINATELY not an Exchange killer. Having been recently moved over to Notes from Exchange, I'd definately (as well as the remainder of my co-workers) take Exchange back any day of the week.
Notes isn't an email system, it's a groupware toolkit that happens to have email as part of the toolkit. To use Notes, the company has to taylor it for how they do business. If it doesn't work well *as groupware* for *users* maybe your IT department needs to get to work and fix it?
Notes has a steamy pile of pooh for a database structure,
Please give examples for the DBAs in the crowd.
everything is server based w/o the option of retreiving mail to your local client,
Personally, I like the control of having everything on my local machine. I also know that the machine that is most likely to fail is the one I'm sitting infront of; it's a cheaper machine (no ECC, lowest bid, older), it has many unstable applications on it, and it is unmonitored. Putting more data on servers is a good idea for most businesses.
it botches mail headers, amongst other flaws. I'm sure there are a TON of other end-users that can empathise with me.
Talk to the folks who implemented your Notes installation. (I'm guessing this is a display issue, since you said you aren't pulling the mail locally and can't look at the raw messages directly.)
Anyway, thats just my story. I'm sure there's a lot more people who try to switch, and for one reason or another just find it easier to give in and put windows back on. If there was more of a willingness to help newbies understand the basics without making them feel like morons, I beleive there'd be a lot more perminent switchers to linux.
Keep a few things in mind when dealing with the 'Read The F#@%!# Manual' attitude;
The new elete: Much of the time, the person feeding you hell is also a newbie -- just a lighter shade of green. They just haven't figured out that they don't know jack. Since they have put in the time to learn ~something~, they think that you should too. Giving you the answer would somehow be cheeting them. (Don't ask, it's human nature. Ex: Ask someone if you can give something they worked on to someone else.)
Insecure alpha geek: This is the next phase that many folks go through. Once they figure out that it is nearly impossible to know much about any OS plus the hardware and the applications, many decide that they need to flaunt the knowledge that they do have. Compared to the elete newbies you will get more out of an alpha geek, but expect that quite a few details will be missing intentionally. An insecure alpha geek will ask you questions that are not related to your problem at hand. It is difficult to know when you are getting the runaround from an alpha geek. Be nice to them and don't make them look foolish if you can avoid it.
While RTFM is usually hostile, sometimes it is really ment to mean "Read The Fine Manual". If you find the answer yourself, you'll be more capable of handling the next problem that comes up. Complaints on ask.slashdot.org about folks not using Google and(!) Usenet forums are usually valid.
When asking a question, make sure that you read and post only to public forums. It is rude to jump into a forum, ask a basic question, then end your message with "Please email me because I won't be back here anytime soon". Not only is this treating others as if they are your personal lackys, it shows that you are not worthy of help (lazy), and are greedy since private emails rarely show up in search engines for others to use later.
When you get a response say "Thanks for the help", don't gripe, even if the help is not very helpful! Ask for more details if the person skimped. A private email is OK here, though please repost the response if it helped you.
Find and trust folks who do not take themselves too seriously. This can be anyone from a guru through to another newbie who just happened to encounter the problem you did the other day. Everyone knows something that someone else has no clue about.
The Securities and Exchange Commision's rules on filing reports on public companies has changed and old rules are being more strictly enforced. Because of that, compounded by the scandals of the last few years that have lead to shareholder lawsuits and other government actions, companies are acting in a more above-board and sane manner.
In Microsoft's case, they are following the SEC's guidelines like many other companies. This is a change for many companies. In Microsoft's situation, we have seen these very recient changes;
Years ago, they should have issued dividends...now they plan to.
Decades ago, they should have broken out each division of the company and discussed profits and losses in each...now they do.
Decades ago, they should have discussed all reasonable impacts on thier profits for each division...now they acknowledge open source.
Don't think this is a new thing for them. Open source has been a potential impact on MS's profits for a couple years. The only thing that has changed is that MS must acknowledge it as a possibility. If they have suffered an actual loss due to open source, the SEC will pressure and eventually require MS to report the loss after it has happened. As of now, no loss is obvious. Microsoft is speculating and has not acknowledged a loss due to open source -- yet. f they did not point this out, it could be the basis for a future lawsuit if a loss occurs.
Thank the SEC, though late themselves, for doing things now that force transparency...that forces some information into the open so we have a better chance to judge on merit not PR.
I'm getting increasingly sick of using IE, but I'm constantly running across sites that Mozilla just can't handle properly (or swiftly). And yes, I've cranked up the security level, though god knows why there exists any level of "security" that would allow unconfirmed installs.
Like what? Seriously, I haven't encountered a problem web site using Mozilla for quite a while.
If you have a list of sites, let the Mozilla folks know about them.
Ah, you do not understand the zen of XP yet. First you write the test. Then you write the code. Then you correct the code so the test passes.
That's extreme programming? Good thing I didn't spend time reading up on this new methodology since I've been doing that for 10+ years. Not for speed, mind you, just to make sure that delivery matches desire.
A lot of the Y2K problem was caused by code written within the last 35 years. It wasn't a disaster, but it was a big problem, and a huge drain on many companies' resources as the tried to fix things up at the last minute.
Agreed, somewhat. Unlike the Y2K problems, the time issue in Unix systems is fairly transparent to the implementation. Update the OS, and the problem goes away in many cases. Y2K, in the case where 2 bits where used instead of 4, were usually program specific.
Because of that, in 35 years few programs will be impacted.
I don't have to pay $800/year for Windows XP for every desktop install of it. It seems my choice for Redhat on the desktop is either AS at $800/year for three years of support, or the "consumer" version for a one year support cycle.
Who says anyone else has to even if they use Red Hat? Read here and (modesty be dammed) here. Install once, treat the system conservatively, and bang...
Bob's your uncle.
If Red Hat has a formal EOL policy, then it can be changed. With no policy, there is no assurance of service. I expect that if this causes any real hassles, Red Hat's policy will change.
That said, Linux has an extreme level of upgradability. Using Red Hat specifically, I ran version 5.1 and upgraded it using newer and newer packages and custom kernels. The result, before I decided to restart from scratch, was mostly based on RH 7.
Even a kernel update -- custom or packaged -- usually does not require user level software changes. When it does, the updates are usually backward compatable so you have a fall back option. This means that if someone runs RH 6, and a local exploit or bug is found in the kernel or other software, they can update to a version that will not have the hole.
Is upgading single packages painless? Not necessarily, though the painful parts are usually because of package dependencies with non-critical programs. Having a mix of packages from different 'versions' is entirely possible as long as you handle the upgrades in a conservative manner; update only what is necessary not every package on the system.
Agreed on Webmin -- it can cause problems. It's a good thing those systems were backed up (right?) so restoring them was trivial (right?). (Don't get angry at me for pointing this out...you know better so don't pretend otherwise.)
Always treat design, test, implementation, deployment, and maintentance as seperate functions.
Deciding on what the system should contain is a design function. Installing software is a function of deployment and test. Maintenance only involves minor revision software updates and only if required. If you are responsible for each of these functions, treat each seriously and don't blur the lines. While this applies mostly to servers, your client machines should be given similar respect.
For example, I was reciently responsible for the maintainance of an email system. It was based on MS Exchange 4.x and had known unplugable security holes. Seperately, with my design, test, and implementation hats on, I worked on a replacement system that was (per management) both cheap and secure and had calendaring support for Outlook clients. While I hated maintaining Exchange, it was not my role to swoop in and replace it. Instead, I had to justify the replacement system on it's own merits and it had to work as a totally silent replacement for the existing system ; no lost mail, no lost contact information, no extra requirements for the users. I would also like to get a replacement for Outlook on the client systems, though in the grand scheme of things this is less critical and would have caused a disruption to the existing routine for the users.
The goal here is familiar to any medical professional; don't cause harm.
OK...I take it back, if instructed by management to install new software, a major revision or anything else not kosher, I'd do it...with a warning to the manager(s) that it is not a good idea. No argument, just a warning.
In either case, you should always have a clean way to get back to a known state. For example, on most Unix systems backing up/etc the moment before making system changes is a good idea. If using a package manager, checking dependencies, cleaning the database, and verifying that you have the existing packages somewhere will help considerably.
Your unskilled assistants should be locked out of being able to perform software updates on any system where you can't do a clean wipe and restore. Everything else is minor configuration, data file, or hardware (printers to network cables).
I think like this for any systems -- Unix-style or not. If I'm part of a team or working on my own systems.
I have a small team of folks that are constantly rotating because we don't have the money to keep them on indefinately, and as soon as they have enough knowledge, they take off for better digs -- which I don't blame them what so ever. These folks have to take care of a lot of the minor details but don't have the big picture that comes from a full time job for several years and experience that comes from this type of activity.
I personally try to keep up with the systems we have running...but while its not hard, in most of the real world, babysitting a single server will not get you far. If thats all most of us were doing, we'd be able to easily take care of this stuff.
Webmin will help unify your Unix systems at the administration level, while Usermin is as it sounds; "a simplified version of Webmin designed for use by normal users".
Secondly, why do you ever have to baby sit a server? There are tools that allow you to keep multiple systems up to date and monitor the health of them automatically. Backups should be checked a few minutes in the morning and adjusted if needed.
It looks like he was toying with the virus idea back in early 2001. While I hate to give Ziff Davis a bit of traffic, Google came up with only one hit on this referencing an MS NBC article;
"... "Sony CEO Howard Stringer, who kept the audience laughing throughout the night with a battery of quips, said, "Right now it would be possible for us, and I've often thought it would cheer me up to do it, you could dispatch a virus to anybody whose files contain us or Columbia records, and make them listen to four hours of Yanni... but in the end we're going to have to get serious about encryption and digital-rights management and watermarking."..."
Slashdot Mirror
Let's hammer that home, shall we? Instead of a minimialist BIOS setup, Award and Asus have decided that the following features are more important than conextual help on the P4PE (rev. 1.03) board;
That's not all...
Tom's Hardware gave this one a thumbs up?
Whatever the client wants, the client gets...or if you're good, convince them otherwise with a minor bit of proding.
That said, the "double the budget" part is nonsense. Good design and good practices should be second nature.
The guy who posted "write it in Mozilla, test it in IE" had it right -- and his tip has the benifit of covering not only that version of Mozilla and that version of IE but likely other versions of each as well...not to count other browsers. Include liberal use of W3C tests during development and actual tests with a dozen different browsers before deployment and you take care of any obvioius mistakes.
To get a good idea about how solid your efforts are does not require following all paths through the system, though a professional should at a minimum kick the tires even for a cheap client and warn the unreasonable, kneck breathing, controlling, ones.
The code never went away. If they never released the source, would you be happier and feel less betrayed?
Sunspire replaced the parts they didn't make and closed it, as they are fully legally and morally within thier right to do. They made it. They own the copyright. They can do as they wish.
Since Tux Racer has been continuously in the top Sourceforge downloads, and others had made modest GPLed contributions, Sunspire figured that selling it would be a good idea. I can't fault that logic. An odd thing happened though. Some folks that might not understand or agree with the GPL felt slighted when a closed and for-pay branch appeared and refused to pay for it out of some odd sense of principle (or being cheap).
The GPLed version is still available so nothing is stopping anyone from making improvements to it.
That said, so far, the commercial version is quite a bit better. Commercial Tux Racer is $15. It runs under both Linux (x86) and Windows. I bought 2 copies, one for me and one for a niece of mine and I consider the price a bargain.
flame off
What about ones with frickin 'la-zer' beams on thier heads? Is that too much to ask? Over the top?
The whole spit and polish of Tux Racer (commercial or GPLed) is much nicer. That's not to say that Soul Ride is bad, it's just not in the same legue as Tux Racer.
LOL! Well, I've read them all...so far, this is the best one.
I'm less psyched about filtering at the router (mail server). Two words: arms race.
Having each mail server filter on content along the chain would work in the short run, as soon as it became too effective, the spamers would think of ways to eeek by the ratio. Lower the ratio, so would the spammers till you end up filtering out mail that is legitimate.
(That, and I'd hate to have to spec a system that would do that filtering without adding substantial delays!)
Beyond adding a cone of paths like you first described, and figuring out other technical ways to deal with this, I see a couple things that will probably be required in the future;
(Ob comment: Yes this is a big deal, involves pain, is likely not backward compatable, and should be thought out very carefully.)
Thanks!
Taped to the window was a very official looking green card for a Mrs. Janet Reno.
Briliant? Hmmm...did Coke's market share go up or down?
Aka: "Liar! Ve Vant Answers!"
Ever try installing Novel, I have, on several servers, you better know what your doing like I did or your going to hell in a hand bag, but linux easier to install than windows?
Novel means...what irt Linux or Windows installation issues?
I don't think so, I mean it says things like HD3/1 and such for partitions, that scares people, they want to see, C drive has this much data, can I install here?A few comments;
Oh and as an administrator you probably have no concept what is easy for the standard user, because you don't remember what it is like to be one.
Administer Windows/Linux/MacOS/...? Isn't that what system administrators do?
I know this often gets me, but when I talk to my friends at other companies that do business with my consulting firm then I understand what a real end user is.
A real end user doesn't do what you're demanding. Hell, half my technically minded friends (including DBAs, system adminstrators, and guru-level developers) configure thier own systems. They expect someone else to do it.
It seems like your main complaint is that you have to use something new and you hate the change in your routine.
I'm sorry, but Lotus Notes is DEFINATELY not an Exchange killer. Having been recently moved over to Notes from Exchange, I'd definately (as well as the remainder of my co-workers) take Exchange back any day of the week.
Notes isn't an email system, it's a groupware toolkit that happens to have email as part of the toolkit. To use Notes, the company has to taylor it for how they do business. If it doesn't work well *as groupware* for *users* maybe your IT department needs to get to work and fix it?
Notes has a steamy pile of pooh for a database structure,
Please give examples for the DBAs in the crowd.
everything is server based w/o the option of retreiving mail to your local client,
Personally, I like the control of having everything on my local machine. I also know that the machine that is most likely to fail is the one I'm sitting infront of; it's a cheaper machine (no ECC, lowest bid, older), it has many unstable applications on it, and it is unmonitored. Putting more data on servers is a good idea for most businesses.
it botches mail headers, amongst other flaws. I'm sure there are a TON of other end-users that can empathise with me.
Talk to the folks who implemented your Notes installation. (I'm guessing this is a display issue, since you said you aren't pulling the mail locally and can't look at the raw messages directly.)
Keep a few things in mind when dealing with the 'Read The F#@%!# Manual' attitude;
In Microsoft's case, they are following the SEC's guidelines like many other companies. This is a change for many companies. In Microsoft's situation, we have seen these very recient changes;
Years ago, they should have issued dividends...now they plan to.
Decades ago, they should have broken out each division of the company and discussed profits and losses in each...now they do.
Decades ago, they should have discussed all reasonable impacts on thier profits for each division...now they acknowledge open source.
Don't think this is a new thing for them. Open source has been a potential impact on MS's profits for a couple years. The only thing that has changed is that MS must acknowledge it as a possibility. If they have suffered an actual loss due to open source, the SEC will pressure and eventually require MS to report the loss after it has happened. As of now, no loss is obvious. Microsoft is speculating and has not acknowledged a loss due to open source -- yet. f they did not point this out, it could be the basis for a future lawsuit if a loss occurs.
Thank the SEC, though late themselves, for doing things now that force transparency...that forces some information into the open so we have a better chance to judge on merit not PR.
Like what? Seriously, I haven't encountered a problem web site using Mozilla for quite a while.
If you have a list of sites, let the Mozilla folks know about them.
That's odd. I renders very nicely in Mozilla 1.2.1
Same here; renders properly for me in Mozilla 1.2.1.
That's extreme programming? Good thing I didn't spend time reading up on this new methodology since I've been doing that for 10+ years. Not for speed, mind you, just to make sure that delivery matches desire.
Agreed, somewhat. Unlike the Y2K problems, the time issue in Unix systems is fairly transparent to the implementation. Update the OS, and the problem goes away in many cases. Y2K, in the case where 2 bits where used instead of 4, were usually program specific.
Because of that, in 35 years few programs will be impacted.
Who says anyone else has to even if they use Red Hat? Read here and (modesty be dammed) here. Install once, treat the system conservatively, and bang... Bob's your uncle.
That said, Linux has an extreme level of upgradability. Using Red Hat specifically, I ran version 5.1 and upgraded it using newer and newer packages and custom kernels. The result, before I decided to restart from scratch, was mostly based on RH 7.
Even a kernel update -- custom or packaged -- usually does not require user level software changes. When it does, the updates are usually backward compatable so you have a fall back option. This means that if someone runs RH 6, and a local exploit or bug is found in the kernel or other software, they can update to a version that will not have the hole.
Is upgading single packages painless? Not necessarily, though the painful parts are usually because of package dependencies with non-critical programs. Having a mix of packages from different 'versions' is entirely possible as long as you handle the upgrades in a conservative manner; update only what is necessary not every package on the system.
Only 35 years? Phew! Talk about a cutting it close!
Always treat design, test, implementation, deployment, and maintentance as seperate functions.
Deciding on what the system should contain is a design function. Installing software is a function of deployment and test. Maintenance only involves minor revision software updates and only if required. If you are responsible for each of these functions, treat each seriously and don't blur the lines. While this applies mostly to servers, your client machines should be given similar respect.
For example, I was reciently responsible for the maintainance of an email system. It was based on MS Exchange 4.x and had known unplugable security holes. Seperately, with my design, test, and implementation hats on, I worked on a replacement system that was (per management) both cheap and secure and had calendaring support for Outlook clients. While I hated maintaining Exchange, it was not my role to swoop in and replace it. Instead, I had to justify the replacement system on it's own merits and it had to work as a totally silent replacement for the existing system ; no lost mail, no lost contact information, no extra requirements for the users. I would also like to get a replacement for Outlook on the client systems, though in the grand scheme of things this is less critical and would have caused a disruption to the existing routine for the users.
The goal here is familiar to any medical professional; don't cause harm.
OK...I take it back, if instructed by management to install new software, a major revision or anything else not kosher, I'd do it...with a warning to the manager(s) that it is not a good idea. No argument, just a warning.
In either case, you should always have a clean way to get back to a known state. For example, on most Unix systems backing up /etc the moment before making system changes is a good idea. If using a package manager, checking dependencies, cleaning the database, and verifying that you have the existing packages somewhere will help considerably.
Your unskilled assistants should be locked out of being able to perform software updates on any system where you can't do a clean wipe and restore. Everything else is minor configuration, data file, or hardware (printers to network cables).
I think like this for any systems -- Unix-style or not. If I'm part of a team or working on my own systems.
- I have a small team of folks that are constantly rotating because we don't have the money to keep them on indefinately, and as soon as they have enough knowledge, they take off for better digs -- which I don't blame them what so ever. These folks have to take care of a lot of the minor details but don't have the big picture that comes from a full time job for several years and experience that comes from this type of activity.
Webmin will help unify your Unix systems at the administration level, while Usermin is as it sounds; "a simplified version of Webmin designed for use by normal users".I personally try to keep up with the systems we have running...but while its not hard, in most of the real world, babysitting a single server will not get you far. If thats all most of us were doing, we'd be able to easily take care of this stuff.
Secondly, why do you ever have to baby sit a server? There are tools that allow you to keep multiple systems up to date and monitor the health of them automatically. Backups should be checked a few minutes in the morning and adjusted if needed.
The rest of your day can be on other things.
Industry leaders perform autopsy on dot-com bustola ( March 11, 2001)
"... "Sony CEO Howard Stringer, who kept the audience laughing throughout the night with a battery of quips, said, "Right now it would be possible for us, and I've often thought it would cheer me up to do it, you could dispatch a virus to anybody whose files contain us or Columbia records, and make them listen to four hours of Yanni ... but in the end we're going to have to get serious about encryption and digital-rights management and watermarking." ..."