With the advances in disk drive capacity and network speed, imagine being able to sync your company's entire set of PDF files/engineering drawings/(pr0n?;-) ) to a laptop for use on site.
Ummm...you can do this now. It's called Briefcase. I use it all the time.
Personally, WinFS scares the crap out of me. It looks far to complicated than it needs to be for casual users. The schema itself looks like a nightmare. Having the ability to transport properties from documents into the fs is cool, but most people don't use them now. Maybe once the tool sets are defined I'll feel better about it.
Thank you for your reply, my opinion of you has just increased tremendously.
To clarify, I have administered computers of all types for 20 years. You assumed that I had said I was working on Windows for 20 years, and I can see why you thought that. As for Windows, maybe it hasn't been around for 20 years, but personal computers have in one form or the other. As for my being stuck on Unix, that is not true at all. MS servers have very valid uses, and we use everything from NT4 to playing with 2003. We have not yet deployed 2003 because there has not been the need, and we are waiting for MS to offer a reason to switch. Am I a 2003 expert? Not at all, I will grant you that. But until there are good reasons to do it for our business, we will wait before we incure the additional costs. We still have several servers on NT4 because they just run and run and run, and we don't want to spend the money or resources to upgrade them.
Many Windows features have direct counterparts with Unix, pipes, services, environment variables, ini files, and directory structures are a few that come to mind. Go the windows command prompt and type the commands netstat, ipconfig (Ok, they changed that from ifconfig), ping, telnet, more; all of these have their home in Unix. In NT, the only way to configure static routes was to use the ipconfig command at the command prompt. The DOS bat files have basically the same structure as Unix shell scripts and many of the same features. Many of the GUI features are directly out of X11, which of course came out of Xerox. They are much more alike than they are different.
Your comment about the kernel allowing the system to be destroyed is exactly the point I am making. With software such as browsers, media players, and such so tightly integrated they cannot be removed, those are unnecessary security risks and not needed. If kernels have bugs, then any software, no matter what level it is running in, can cause problems. But, even that aside, software running in the user space can still delete files, change user configs, send emails, create processes that use up CPU, disk, and memory resources, and lots of other nasty things. I can take any server down, or make it almost unusable, with a simple shell script, no matter what permissions I am running in. So, any user program that can be subverted to create and execute programs can attack servers. You must agree with that point. That is why I am so adamant about removing non-necessary programs and processes, be they browser or GUI interfaces.
It is very interesting your point about admins. I have seen just the opposite, Unix admins have been able to administer Windows servers with almost no training, because of its GUI. I never claimed it's GUI was not well done, just something that is not always necessary. X Windows make Unix servers much easier to administer, but we still remove them from all production servers for security reasons. And since Microsoft is improving their deployment processes in 2003 server and I assume Longhorn, shouldn't their need become even less important??
There are many things that Windows does that that have direct corelaries in the Unix world (and the other way around), they just does them in different ways. Concepts centered around user registration, services, networking, disks, et. al. are very similar to every computer system I have ever worked on. In my last position, because it was a small company, all the Unix and Windows admins were all cross trained on all the servers (something I started). Granted, the Windows admins did not become Unix experts and the Unix admins did not become Windows experts, but the transition was very easy and it became a lot easier to decide what type of server to deploy something on. The hardest parts were teaching the Windows admins all the little command line tools and getting the Unix admins to learn how to write VB scripts (because they are more object oriented than shell scripts). Neither was that difficult. I am quite frustrated at my current position
I beg to differ with your assumptions. I have administered both Windows and Unix (and NCR and IBM and DEC) servers for over 20 years. If you have the courage to expose your arguments, then by all means please do so.
I did not say specifically a browser is a security risk. I said that any software loaded is a security risk, and you should not load software that is not needed. Even running on a system as a normal user (which only sysadmins do - no developers are allowed on production boxes and no one can log in as root, only su with full audit trail (who, when, and where)) introduces security risks. Once a piece of software is comprimised, regardless of security level, there is opportunity for damage. All I suggested was that MS needs to break up their OS into pieces so that admins can choose which ones they need based on their own business requirements, not Bill Gates meglomaniac view that he alone knows what is best. Fewer pieces of software means fewer security risks, you can't compromise what does not exist.
I take offense to your statement that I don't know operating system mechanics. Having seen computers evolve from punch card systems with switches and lights into the modern GUI systems, I have a very good understanding of what operating systems do (manage access to resources), what utility programs do (manage the OS and resources), and what applications programs do (utilize resources), and have very strong opinions based on years of solving problems where those lines should be drawn. The one most important lesson learned is that less is more when it comes to a computer system, the simplest means to get the job done is cheaper and more efficient to operate in the long run. I have had numerous independant security audits run on both Unix and Windows servers over the last 10 years, and have always received excellent ratings.
I was not railing against Microsoft quality or security, only presenting an opinion that MS nees to break their OS up a little better. I did not say not to include IE in their OS offering, but to provide means for those systems that do not need the functionality to remove it. I hardly call that a troll. As a sys admin, I (and my cohorts) should decide whether or not a GUI interface such as Windows or X11 is needed, not Microsoft.
I dare anyone to point out any troll in my prior post. It was factually based with reasoned arguments without any emotional attachement. (OK, the 'Period' statement in the first paragraph was a little strong, sorry if it offended anyone.)
On a more personal note, Slashdot is not for the meek and timid posters. If you truly have good arguments, I would love to hear them. But only if you are open minded enough to hear mine. Otherwise, you are no better than a Jehovah's Witness or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints member at my door. Arguing with them is the best way to get rid of them too, they don't like to hear about alternatives and will never come back.
Servers do not require GUIs to be part of the server OS. Period. My servers are in another room that I don't even have access to. Why does the SERVER need a GUI OS? I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation, other than to make it easier for newbie admins. I have yet to find anything in Linux or Solaris server that requires a GUI to administer it. This makes for very tight and small servers that can ignore 95% of security issues because the software simply isn't installed.
Windows IS a GUI OS, there is no way to separate it. GUI OSes take up resources, even if it is only disk space, and introduce unnecessary security risks.
Why include a browser if you can't use it anyway until you configure it. Here is an idea, make it an option at build time so if I never need it, it is never installed. Oh, I forgot, it is part of the monolithic OS and can't be separated. Which is exactly my point. MS doesn't know how to, or chooses not to, build an OS that uses plug in components. My guess is that is one of the reasons why Longhorn is taking so long. It is hard to fix security issues when one change can impact every component.
The point about kernel and Open SSH are almost right on, except if no one has access to the command prompt then kernel hacks are irrelevant (which is how my servers are setup, and if someone gets root I'm toast anyway, no matter what kernel hacks there are) and I have a choice which SSH software to use. While I can install any browser on my desktop, I can't remove IE. And that is true of all MS products.
An 'Operating System' manages resources, like memory, disk, etc. It does not provide telnet, ssh, browser, media player, or even directory listings. These things should not be coupled to an OS, rather the OS provides the environment for these things to operate in. This then provides the skilled admins of the world the tool sets to truly administer a server based on business requirements rather than Microsoft's.
Let's look at Unix systems. I can completely replace evry single command and shell in the system if I chose to with whatever I want to use. I can strip down the OS so far that it will only run on one specific hardware configuration and only with a subset of commands. I can completely eliminate the ls command if I chose (not that that would make any sense.) I can remove the hardware auto-configure option. I can make the box a web server and only a web server, which is what security is all about, minimizing risks.
You simply cannot do that with MS products. You must install numerous software components that you will not use, and depend on the OS to lock them down, as was your point with IE. There are exactly three open ports on my webserver, 80, 443, and a non-standard SSH port (that only responds to a specific IP address). Do a netstat on your most secure web server and tell me how many ports are open. I'll bet it ain't 3.
And that is the real problem, having an OS do my work their way.
And the whole point of a server is to provide....services to other computers, not to provide pretty eye candy for some newbie admin.
This is one of the things Microsoft doesn't get. When I build a Sun or Linux production server, the only software on it is the software needed to provide the services the server was built for. Web servers don't neeed GUIs, browsers, or media playsers. Database servers don't need GUIs, , browsers, or media playsers. Application servers don't need GUIs, browsers, or media playsers. I might use a GUI to attach and manage them, but the servers themselves don't need one.
This type of thinking will continue to be Microsoft's security and performance nightmare. If there is a security hole in Mozilla, I don't need to worry about it on my production servers because it ain't there. If there is a security problem with Apache, I don't need to worry about it except on the webserver because it ain't on the app server or DB server. It doesn't take up memory, diskspace or CPU cycles either.
Even offloaded CPU cycles take up CPU cycles at some point, either to issue the instructions or to move on to the next ones. Something has to tell the server the mouse just oved over that pretty icon and to use a few CPU cycles to tell the graphic card to make it flutter in the breeze.
Bah.. using program to do it is not l33t. I did it in vi by hand w/o an ASCII chart. The comma was a pain though, I couldn't understand why a quote mark went there for the longest time.
OK.. I did use an ASCII chart for the comma.....and I am 44 years old and have had a lot of experience with memory dumps.
Interesting thought. What prevents Microsoft from buying Intel, or AMD, or whatever?
My first thought is that MS has not done too well with hardware, i.e. Xbox, Microsoft Phone, Microsoft networking products, etc., and that so far it probably has not been very profitable for them. But, they are very good at acquiring; with their war chest it is not unreasonable for them to attempt some type of purchase of a major chip manufacturer.
To argue my own points... if chips fabrication could be reduced in cost where anyone could make chips, then 'open-source' chips could appear. That would then eliminate the advertising, R&D, delayed implementation, and advanced feature arguments, leaving only infrastructure costs (cases , etc.).
That would make Gates statement true, but contribute to the further decline of the propriatary OS. Microsoft is currently trying to tie the OS to the BIOS to lock hardware down because they are afraid of the threat posed by OSS. If they cannot lock the hardware, and people have choice, then there will always be OSS.
Chip makers will contine to create advancements and will want their R&D dollars back, just like Mr. Gates. This is why software is expensive; it is cheap to to burn a CD but time consuming to develop.
Two words.. advertising costs.
Chip makers delay the release of new chip sets if they have significant inventory of other models. This keeps the prices of current chips artifically high until the manufacturers feel they can't milk any more out of consumers. Chip makers will be sure to not release new products until demand is there and they recover R&D costs for older chips.
CPU and memory chips account for less than half the cost of a PC; disk drives, monitors, DVD/CD drives, cases and motherboards make up the rest. These items have too many mechanical/structural parts to realize significant savings from improved chip manufacturing techniques. Even if the memory and CPU were free, systems will still cost a few hundred dollars.
Some people will always want/need advanced features, and computer systems and chip makers will always charge a premium for those items.
Chips contain software (on-board video, BIOS,etc.). I doubt if the makers of those software components will start giving it away. But, if open-source alternatives became available, those items would realize additional savings. I would not be surprised if more software wound it's way into hardware as the cost of updating firmware becomes cheaper. Hardware video drives can be a lot more effective than OS video drivers.
Until chip manufacturers stop releasing new products every few months (reduces R&D), stop advertising, and create an entire system on a chip, including structerual components, external interfaces (wireless??), storage, and displays, computer systems will never be 'almost free'.
I would think that rocket development would not have been as accelerated and Warner Von Braun (sp??) probably would not have left Germany. Whether we would have had it or it would have been delayed an interesting philosophical question about war accelerating technology. We probably could ask the same question about nuclear power.
Let me check my way-back machine and get back to you.....
If the retraing argument were true, then no one should ever upgrade MS products. I just installed XP on a new computer and have spent weeks trying to learn the damn thing. They moved everything, and even setting things back to classic mode still has quirks. I still can't get it to use my Samba server, it sees the server but can't open even public shares. (OK.. I haven't really been working that hard at it, I just assumed that it would work like EVERY OTHER NON-XP SYSTEM IN THE HOUSE!!!)
I remember talking to a marketing person about her database. I had written an Apache/Tomcat front end for it because use the Access forms was just a pain in the ass for her and she couldn't figure out how to export them to a web page. But that is another story....
Since I had been a developer/DBA for upwards of 20 years, I thought I would give her a few tips about normalizing, etc. that would make the database easier to use. Oh no...she would have nothing to do with my suggestions. She had been an Access DBA for years (can you see where this is going) and had designed countless databases with thousands of rows (suppress smirk here). I just didn't understand enough about what she was doing to appreciate it.
Making things easy to use is not necessarily a good thing.
That being said, my opinion is that saying Access is a database is the same as saying Excel is a database. Sure, both can store data. But why would you want to for anything that has the remotest possbility of growing or needing to be used by several people at the same time.
Columbus did not gather together an army of accountants and business analysts and provide page after page of detailed ROI analysis, risk analysis, and countless charts (with an executive overview of course) to justify his voyage. No one expected the trip to be without any loss of life or ships. There where known risks (i.e. weather, pirates, disesase, etc.) and unknown risks (falling off the edge of the world, running into a new continent, etc.) but he didn't have to garner the support of a country in order to do it. I would guess it was a very hard sell and it was just as likely he would fail as he would succeed (BTW --- he failed his original plan, but took advantage of that failure to succeed). No one undertook sea voyages then with any guarantee that they would not see peril along the way.
I'm sure the approval to finance his trip was done because they assumed the return would be there. But my point is that there were no guarantees, neither of a safe return or of even finding acceptable trade routes to the Orient for the presumed riches. Instead, a new land was identified to the Europeans and was immediatly set upon by hordes of more fortune seekers, all who ran the risk of dieing before they even set foot in the 'New World'. But as more and more traveled, the ability to survive the trip improved.
One could argue whether or not Europe was better off for the trip. But that adventurism/fortune seeking is what we have lost, and that is what will probably strand us on this rock for far longer that it should. Until we can guarantee without a shadow of a doubt that we can send people to the moon or Mars and return them, no one will be allowed to go. If one person dies, there will be countless delays and second-guessing to make sure it never happens again.
Meanwhile, there are people who would be willing to take that risk. Our governments will never let it happen, and the cost to the private sector is probably too high. And since no one has ever done it before, we have absolutly no idea what the returns will be.
I am willing to pony up my tax dollars to do it. If the US can spend half a billion dollars just to elect a president (expected campaign expenditures of all the candidates this year), there is absolutely no justification that the risk is not worth it in my mind.
The wrong analysis
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If the eary explorers had taken the same route we had, it would have been hundreds if not thousands more years before the early 'explorers' laid out their shipping routes. I doubt if Christopher Columbus had a detailed business plan showing return on investment before he went and ask for his backing. He had a idea, which is of far more importance.
What was important is not what they wanted to do, but what they did and 'discovered'. (I have put discovered and explorers in quotes, since many of the explorers where looking for fortunes and how do you discover lands where people already exist, but those are other arguements.)
Why should we go to Mars? For the same reason that we used to climb mountains, because no one has done it before and we have no idea what will be found there or what will come of it. Climbing Mount Everest used to be only for the few, now almost anyone in reasonable health and a good bank account can scale it. The mountain hasn't changed, only our knowledge of how to deal with it.
Our largest problem with space travel is making it safe. The US has become a country without risk takers (except on the freeways), people who are willing to put their life on the line just because. Even those souls that take around the world trips in ballons or wicker boats have armadas of support groups in case something happens.
I say balls to the wall....build something that has a 50-50 chance of making it back and fire it off. If it gets there and back, great. If not, we will probably learn a thousand times as much about what not to do the second time. Regardless, the people on the journey will be heroes and will be written up in countless of school books, especially if they are from several different countries.
Why go there?? Why not...it is the closest thing we have to spreading out species off this planet onto something that is marginally friendly. It will probably cost less to house people on Mars than on the Moon in terms of obtaining resources and creating an safe environment.
Yep... time to find someplace else to exploit. This little planet is starting to wear out.
Give it a rest. I've seen areas where WalMart did drive small companies out of business (South Portland and Biddeford Maine), but they attracted a lot more. I've got news for you, mom and pop stores don't pay much more than Wally World, and they definatley don't have the career possiblities. Scoff if you will, but you can start out a stock person and move up into management in a few years then get a job for somebody else. Of course not everyone can, but then not everyone moves into management in any company. You don't even have that choice in an overpriced mom and pop store, once a clerk always a clerk
We may whine about the death of the inner city, but is that really where we want business to be?? To have people drive several miles through traffic laden streets into a downtown area? Better that they are in the suburbs close to where people live, and where other service oriented businesses can thrive.
Times are changing, if those mom and pop businesses can't change and compete, bye-bye....
I appreciate your comments and send my sincere wishes that your son continues to be well. I can think of nothing worse for a parent to go through than having a seriously ill baby. When my wife was pregnant with our second child, my biggest fear was that after the wonderful health of my first born son, that our second born would have something wrong. I literally broke into tears when she emerged in good health. I cannot imagine what emotions must have run through your family during that time.
But there has to be a middle ground. With the cost of our health care system skyrocketing out of control and our ability to use technology more and more, society simply cannot afford to go down that path. You mention that money does not equal the life of a person. But I feel that there has to be limits to what society is responsible for. I don't know at what point enough is enough, but there must be some. Maybe it is a simple quality of life issue. Maybe it's comparing the cost of the healthcare v/s the expected lifespan of the recipient. Spending $300.000 euros to extend the life of a newborn into adulthood is far different than spending the same amount on an 85 year old with terminal cancer.
Another perspective would be people who do not take care of themselves. Should society pay for the chronically obese, smokers or drug addict health costs? What obligation do we put on people to take care of themselves if the government is willing to pay all costs to make them better?
Your mention of exploring space is ironic, considering that many of the technologies that were developed for space flight may have provided for your daughters care. Computers, remote sensors, and improved environmental systems all were improved by the space programs, which were of course born out of the defense industry. Without those very programs, it is possible that the hospital would not have had the technology necessary to provide the equipment your daughter needed.
I agree that killing people has to stop, but I am not about to dismantle our defense system, nor ask others to do so, until all the madmen and fanatics out there are no longer threats. People can argue about whether or not the US should have invaded Iraq, but the facts prove that Saddam was a madman who murdered tens of thousands of his own people. I find it odd that he is not branded with the same label that Adolph Hitler was branded with. Is it only because the people he has slaughtered are Muslim?? Or poor?? Or not white?? (For the record, I am a white male athiest.)
Personally, if everyone put less energy into their religion and more into their actions, maybe then your dream could be realized.
I had similar thoughts when I saw this report on TV. I have to admit, if the baby were my child I probably would do all I could do to keep my child alive.
But are we just talking about the cost, or is there another issue that we have to consider. Technology is getting to the point where just about everyone lives to breeding age. This means that the defective genes these children have are passed on. Are we de-evolving as a species because we improve the chances of living to breeding age?
The only way that I can think to balance this technological conundrum is via genetics. If we could identify and correct such issues in an embryo, or go to the level of the movie Gattaca and pre-select those embryos with the best genes, that would decrease the possiblity of such extreme surgeries. Of course, that then brings up a tremendous number of ethics issues, but none that cannot be worked through, or that some small country won't become a haven for.
Or, in a more cruel line, if you can't afford it, you can't have it. Is it really societies responsibility to make sure that every child has an equal chance at attaining adulthood? Or is it their parents.
The United States has been taking more and more of the responsibility of parenting away from the parent and to the state. Our children are currently taught moral values by state-run schools, sex ed for example. There are numerous examples of parents being brought up on charges for spanking(I'm not talking about beating, I'm talking about a swat on the rump that every American over the age of 40 has had at least two or three times in their lives) or denying health care due to personal or religeous beliefs. Where will it stop?
I don't have the answers, I don't think anyone does. I am of the opinion that if you can't afford it, all you get is basic health care to treat colds, broken bones, etc., and the more expensive health care that is needed for 6 organ transplants are not guarantees. If a family can raise the money or a hospital wants to waive fees so they can try new procedures, those options should always be available.
Come on... I'm sorry. I do have enough computers in my apartment for myself, my fiancee, and our three cats?? Three are dual boot Windows/Linux and one is Linux only. My fiancee and I send emails to each other even when we are in the same room. That has to count for something....
Oh wait, I think having a female in my life is also grounds for revocation......
Why would I spend $700 for something that is bigger and heavier than my $300 Sony Clie?? It plays MP3s and videos. (I love showing people Golem accepting the MTV award.)
I can get several CDs on an 128MB memory stick and play them in my car using an RF adapter. The MS product does provides more disk space for video, but with the recent advances in micro drives, it's only a matter of time until they start becoming more common in PDAs.
I thought MS was supposed to be better at creating loss leaders <cough> XBox </cough >
I thought the same thing until I thought of this....
Some of the M boards have 6 channel stereo as well as svideo out
Any good electrician can get you a power outlet anywhere you want. No visible power cord is necessary. While he is at it, run audio and video cables to the your stereo in the same room, you know, the one with the TV over it?
I don't see any reason why this thing can't have a DVD slot in the side and a decent hard drive. If you put in a fanless chip, orient it towards the top and put in some vents at the top and bottom, convection should be enough to keep it cool enough.
Either use Linux or Microsoft with NetMetting enabled and no need for a keyboard or mouse. Or, better yet, hide a wireless keyboard/mouse dongle on it.
Voila... a file server for MP3s and MPEGs. Toss in a 802.11g card and you have a 'hidden' file server that can display your thousands of pictures. I used to use Netscape scripts to display rotating pictures on my desktop.
I have a W2K desktop with an HP deskjet attached, a W2K laptop, and an XP laptop all on a wireless network. The W2K laptop took almost no time to get setup to print. I spent HOURS trying to get the XP to use the printer on the desktop. Finally, the only way I could get it to work was to first connect to a disk share using the desktop username/password. After that, I can use the printer just fine.
I finally gave up, and to this day my fiancee and I still have to connect to a disk share and give it a username and password before we can print from her eXtra Pretty laptop (which also seems to remove wireless network drivers at random, but that is another story).
Now... where is the help documentation on this function again?? Where was the support desk I could call? I used Google and Microsoft's knowledgebase and couldn't find out why it wouldn't work. And I am still trying to find that stupid switch which says to only connect disk shares when they are used, not at startup. I've used it before, but damn if I can find it now.
I think all of us could find an equal number of issues with both systems to fill a book. Technical people will at least expend an effort to figure out what the problem is and attempt to fix it. Joe Sixpack will just call one of us instead and pay us in beer.
Hmmm...now that I think about it, I am always bugging this guy at work whenever I have car problems....
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, WinFS scares the crap out of me. It looks far to complicated than it needs to be for casual users. The schema itself looks like a nightmare. Having the ability to transport properties from documents into the fs is cool, but most people don't use them now. Maybe once the tool sets are defined I'll feel better about it.
Thank you for your reply, my opinion of you has just increased tremendously.
To clarify, I have administered computers of all types for 20 years. You assumed that I had said I was working on Windows for 20 years, and I can see why you thought that. As for Windows, maybe it hasn't been around for 20 years, but personal computers have in one form or the other. As for my being stuck on Unix, that is not true at all. MS servers have very valid uses, and we use everything from NT4 to playing with 2003. We have not yet deployed 2003 because there has not been the need, and we are waiting for MS to offer a reason to switch. Am I a 2003 expert? Not at all, I will grant you that. But until there are good reasons to do it for our business, we will wait before we incure the additional costs. We still have several servers on NT4 because they just run and run and run, and we don't want to spend the money or resources to upgrade them.
Many Windows features have direct counterparts with Unix, pipes, services, environment variables, ini files, and directory structures are a few that come to mind. Go the windows command prompt and type the commands netstat, ipconfig (Ok, they changed that from ifconfig), ping, telnet, more; all of these have their home in Unix. In NT, the only way to configure static routes was to use the ipconfig command at the command prompt. The DOS bat files have basically the same structure as Unix shell scripts and many of the same features. Many of the GUI features are directly out of X11, which of course came out of Xerox. They are much more alike than they are different.
Your comment about the kernel allowing the system to be destroyed is exactly the point I am making. With software such as browsers, media players, and such so tightly integrated they cannot be removed, those are unnecessary security risks and not needed. If kernels have bugs, then any software, no matter what level it is running in, can cause problems. But, even that aside, software running in the user space can still delete files, change user configs, send emails, create processes that use up CPU, disk, and memory resources, and lots of other nasty things. I can take any server down, or make it almost unusable, with a simple shell script, no matter what permissions I am running in. So, any user program that can be subverted to create and execute programs can attack servers. You must agree with that point. That is why I am so adamant about removing non-necessary programs and processes, be they browser or GUI interfaces.
It is very interesting your point about admins. I have seen just the opposite, Unix admins have been able to administer Windows servers with almost no training, because of its GUI. I never claimed it's GUI was not well done, just something that is not always necessary. X Windows make Unix servers much easier to administer, but we still remove them from all production servers for security reasons. And since Microsoft is improving their deployment processes in 2003 server and I assume Longhorn, shouldn't their need become even less important??
There are many things that Windows does that that have direct corelaries in the Unix world (and the other way around), they just does them in different ways. Concepts centered around user registration, services, networking, disks, et. al. are very similar to every computer system I have ever worked on. In my last position, because it was a small company, all the Unix and Windows admins were all cross trained on all the servers (something I started). Granted, the Windows admins did not become Unix experts and the Unix admins did not become Windows experts, but the transition was very easy and it became a lot easier to decide what type of server to deploy something on. The hardest parts were teaching the Windows admins all the little command line tools and getting the Unix admins to learn how to write VB scripts (because they are more object oriented than shell scripts). Neither was that difficult. I am quite frustrated at my current position
I beg to differ with your assumptions. I have administered both Windows and Unix (and NCR and IBM and DEC) servers for over 20 years. If you have the courage to expose your arguments, then by all means please do so.
I did not say specifically a browser is a security risk. I said that any software loaded is a security risk, and you should not load software that is not needed. Even running on a system as a normal user (which only sysadmins do - no developers are allowed on production boxes and no one can log in as root, only su with full audit trail (who, when, and where)) introduces security risks. Once a piece of software is comprimised, regardless of security level, there is opportunity for damage. All I suggested was that MS needs to break up their OS into pieces so that admins can choose which ones they need based on their own business requirements, not Bill Gates meglomaniac view that he alone knows what is best. Fewer pieces of software means fewer security risks, you can't compromise what does not exist.
I take offense to your statement that I don't know operating system mechanics. Having seen computers evolve from punch card systems with switches and lights into the modern GUI systems, I have a very good understanding of what operating systems do (manage access to resources), what utility programs do (manage the OS and resources), and what applications programs do (utilize resources), and have very strong opinions based on years of solving problems where those lines should be drawn. The one most important lesson learned is that less is more when it comes to a computer system, the simplest means to get the job done is cheaper and more efficient to operate in the long run. I have had numerous independant security audits run on both Unix and Windows servers over the last 10 years, and have always received excellent ratings.
I was not railing against Microsoft quality or security, only presenting an opinion that MS nees to break their OS up a little better. I did not say not to include IE in their OS offering, but to provide means for those systems that do not need the functionality to remove it. I hardly call that a troll. As a sys admin, I (and my cohorts) should decide whether or not a GUI interface such as Windows or X11 is needed, not Microsoft.
I dare anyone to point out any troll in my prior post. It was factually based with reasoned arguments without any emotional attachement. (OK, the 'Period' statement in the first paragraph was a little strong, sorry if it offended anyone.)
On a more personal note, Slashdot is not for the meek and timid posters. If you truly have good arguments, I would love to hear them. But only if you are open minded enough to hear mine. Otherwise, you are no better than a Jehovah's Witness or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints member at my door. Arguing with them is the best way to get rid of them too, they don't like to hear about alternatives and will never come back.
Servers do not require GUIs to be part of the server OS. Period. My servers are in another room that I don't even have access to. Why does the SERVER need a GUI OS? I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation, other than to make it easier for newbie admins. I have yet to find anything in Linux or Solaris server that requires a GUI to administer it. This makes for very tight and small servers that can ignore 95% of security issues because the software simply isn't installed.
Windows IS a GUI OS, there is no way to separate it. GUI OSes take up resources, even if it is only disk space, and introduce unnecessary security risks.
Why include a browser if you can't use it anyway until you configure it. Here is an idea, make it an option at build time so if I never need it, it is never installed. Oh, I forgot, it is part of the monolithic OS and can't be separated. Which is exactly my point. MS doesn't know how to, or chooses not to, build an OS that uses plug in components. My guess is that is one of the reasons why Longhorn is taking so long. It is hard to fix security issues when one change can impact every component.
The point about kernel and Open SSH are almost right on, except if no one has access to the command prompt then kernel hacks are irrelevant (which is how my servers are setup, and if someone gets root I'm toast anyway, no matter what kernel hacks there are) and I have a choice which SSH software to use. While I can install any browser on my desktop, I can't remove IE. And that is true of all MS products.
An 'Operating System' manages resources, like memory, disk, etc. It does not provide telnet, ssh, browser, media player, or even directory listings. These things should not be coupled to an OS, rather the OS provides the environment for these things to operate in. This then provides the skilled admins of the world the tool sets to truly administer a server based on business requirements rather than Microsoft's.
Let's look at Unix systems. I can completely replace evry single command and shell in the system if I chose to with whatever I want to use. I can strip down the OS so far that it will only run on one specific hardware configuration and only with a subset of commands. I can completely eliminate the ls command if I chose (not that that would make any sense.) I can remove the hardware auto-configure option. I can make the box a web server and only a web server, which is what security is all about, minimizing risks.
You simply cannot do that with MS products. You must install numerous software components that you will not use, and depend on the OS to lock them down, as was your point with IE. There are exactly three open ports on my webserver, 80, 443, and a non-standard SSH port (that only responds to a specific IP address). Do a netstat on your most secure web server and tell me how many ports are open. I'll bet it ain't 3.
And that is the real problem, having an OS do my work their way.
And the whole point of a server is to provide....services to other computers, not to provide pretty eye candy for some newbie admin.
This is one of the things Microsoft doesn't get. When I build a Sun or Linux production server, the only software on it is the software needed to provide the services the server was built for. Web servers don't neeed GUIs, browsers, or media playsers. Database servers don't need GUIs, , browsers, or media playsers. Application servers don't need GUIs, browsers, or media playsers. I might use a GUI to attach and manage them, but the servers themselves don't need one.
This type of thinking will continue to be Microsoft's security and performance nightmare. If there is a security hole in Mozilla, I don't need to worry about it on my production servers because it ain't there. If there is a security problem with Apache, I don't need to worry about it except on the webserver because it ain't on the app server or DB server. It doesn't take up memory, diskspace or CPU cycles either.
Even offloaded CPU cycles take up CPU cycles at some point, either to issue the instructions or to move on to the next ones. Something has to tell the server the mouse just oved over that pretty icon and to use a few CPU cycles to tell the graphic card to make it flutter in the breeze.
The first millenium or the second one??
... couldn't resist...)
Since we just started the third, I assume you don't mean that one...
(sorry
I see how you were confused ... vi is my pet hamster, I keep him in my EZ-Bake PC
Bah .. using program to do it is not l33t. I did it in vi by hand w/o an ASCII chart. The comma was a pain though, I couldn't understand why a quote mark went there for the longest time.
.. I did use an ASCII chart for the comma.....and I am 44 years old and have had a lot of experience with memory dumps.
OK
Everybody so far......including me.
Interesting thought. What prevents Microsoft from buying Intel, or AMD, or whatever?
My first thought is that MS has not done too well with hardware, i.e. Xbox, Microsoft Phone, Microsoft networking products, etc., and that so far it probably has not been very profitable for them. But, they are very good at acquiring; with their war chest it is not unreasonable for them to attempt some type of purchase of a major chip manufacturer.
To argue my own points ... if chips fabrication could be reduced in cost where anyone could make chips, then 'open-source' chips could appear. That would then eliminate the advertising, R&D, delayed implementation, and advanced feature arguments, leaving only infrastructure costs (cases , etc.).
That would make Gates statement true, but contribute to the further decline of the propriatary OS. Microsoft is currently trying to tie the OS to the BIOS to lock hardware down because they are afraid of the threat posed by OSS. If they cannot lock the hardware, and people have choice, then there will always be OSS.
- Chip makers will contine to create advancements and will want their R&D dollars back, just like Mr. Gates. This is why software is expensive; it is cheap to to burn a CD but time consuming to develop.
- Two words
.. advertising costs.
- Chip makers delay the release of new chip sets if they have significant inventory of other models. This keeps the prices of current chips artifically high until the manufacturers feel they can't milk any more out of consumers. Chip makers will be sure to not release new products until demand is there and they recover R&D costs for older chips.
- CPU and memory chips account for less than half the cost of a PC; disk drives, monitors, DVD/CD drives, cases and motherboards make up the rest. These items have too many mechanical/structural parts to realize significant savings from improved chip manufacturing techniques. Even if the memory and CPU were free, systems will still cost a few hundred dollars.
- Some people will always want/need advanced features, and computer systems and chip makers will always charge a premium for those items.
- Chips contain software (on-board video, BIOS,etc.). I doubt if the makers of those software components will start giving it away. But, if open-source alternatives became available, those items would realize additional savings. I would not be surprised if more software wound it's way into hardware as the cost of updating firmware becomes cheaper. Hardware video drives can be a lot more effective than OS video drivers.
Until chip manufacturers stop releasing new products every few months (reduces R&D), stop advertising, and create an entire system on a chip, including structerual components, external interfaces (wireless??), storage, and displays, computer systems will never be 'almost free'.Hmmm....interesting question.
I would think that rocket development would not have been as accelerated and Warner Von Braun (sp??) probably would not have left Germany. Whether we would have had it or it would have been delayed an interesting philosophical question about war accelerating technology. We probably could ask the same question about nuclear power.
Let me check my way-back machine and get back to you.....
If the retraing argument were true, then no one should ever upgrade MS products. I just installed XP on a new computer and have spent weeks trying to learn the damn thing. They moved everything, and even setting things back to classic mode still has quirks. I still can't get it to use my Samba server, it sees the server but can't open even public shares. (OK .. I haven't really been working that hard at it, I just assumed that it would work like EVERY OTHER NON-XP SYSTEM IN THE HOUSE!!!)
I remember talking to a marketing person about her database. I had written an Apache/Tomcat front end for it because use the Access forms was just a pain in the ass for her and she couldn't figure out how to export them to a web page. But that is another story....
Since I had been a developer/DBA for upwards of 20 years, I thought I would give her a few tips about normalizing, etc. that would make the database easier to use. Oh no...she would have nothing to do with my suggestions. She had been an Access DBA for years (can you see where this is going) and had designed countless databases with thousands of rows (suppress smirk here). I just didn't understand enough about what she was doing to appreciate it.
Making things easy to use is not necessarily a good thing. That being said, my opinion is that saying Access is a database is the same as saying Excel is a database. Sure, both can store data. But why would you want to for anything that has the remotest possbility of growing or needing to be used by several people at the same time.
My apologies for not being clearer....
Columbus did not gather together an army of accountants and business analysts and provide page after page of detailed ROI analysis, risk analysis, and countless charts (with an executive overview of course) to justify his voyage. No one expected the trip to be without any loss of life or ships. There where known risks (i.e. weather, pirates, disesase, etc.) and unknown risks (falling off the edge of the world, running into a new continent, etc.) but he didn't have to garner the support of a country in order to do it. I would guess it was a very hard sell and it was just as likely he would fail as he would succeed (BTW --- he failed his original plan, but took advantage of that failure to succeed). No one undertook sea voyages then with any guarantee that they would not see peril along the way.
I'm sure the approval to finance his trip was done because they assumed the return would be there. But my point is that there were no guarantees, neither of a safe return or of even finding acceptable trade routes to the Orient for the presumed riches. Instead, a new land was identified to the Europeans and was immediatly set upon by hordes of more fortune seekers, all who ran the risk of dieing before they even set foot in the 'New World'. But as more and more traveled, the ability to survive the trip improved.
One could argue whether or not Europe was better off for the trip. But that adventurism/fortune seeking is what we have lost, and that is what will probably strand us on this rock for far longer that it should. Until we can guarantee without a shadow of a doubt that we can send people to the moon or Mars and return them, no one will be allowed to go. If one person dies, there will be countless delays and second-guessing to make sure it never happens again.
Meanwhile, there are people who would be willing to take that risk. Our governments will never let it happen, and the cost to the private sector is probably too high. And since no one has ever done it before, we have absolutly no idea what the returns will be.
I am willing to pony up my tax dollars to do it. If the US can spend half a billion dollars just to elect a president (expected campaign expenditures of all the candidates this year), there is absolutely no justification that the risk is not worth it in my mind.
If the eary explorers had taken the same route we had, it would have been hundreds if not thousands more years before the early 'explorers' laid out their shipping routes. I doubt if Christopher Columbus had a detailed business plan showing return on investment before he went and ask for his backing. He had a idea, which is of far more importance.
... time to find someplace else to exploit. This little planet is starting to wear out.
What was important is not what they wanted to do, but what they did and 'discovered'. (I have put discovered and explorers in quotes, since many of the explorers where looking for fortunes and how do you discover lands where people already exist, but those are other arguements.)
Why should we go to Mars? For the same reason that we used to climb mountains, because no one has done it before and we have no idea what will be found there or what will come of it. Climbing Mount Everest used to be only for the few, now almost anyone in reasonable health and a good bank account can scale it. The mountain hasn't changed, only our knowledge of how to deal with it.
Our largest problem with space travel is making it safe. The US has become a country without risk takers (except on the freeways), people who are willing to put their life on the line just because. Even those souls that take around the world trips in ballons or wicker boats have armadas of support groups in case something happens.
I say balls to the wall....build something that has a 50-50 chance of making it back and fire it off. If it gets there and back, great. If not, we will probably learn a thousand times as much about what not to do the second time. Regardless, the people on the journey will be heroes and will be written up in countless of school books, especially if they are from several different countries.
Why go there?? Why not...it is the closest thing we have to spreading out species off this planet onto something that is marginally friendly. It will probably cost less to house people on Mars than on the Moon in terms of obtaining resources and creating an safe environment.
Yep
Give it a rest. I've seen areas where WalMart did drive small companies out of business (South Portland and Biddeford Maine), but they attracted a lot more. I've got news for you, mom and pop stores don't pay much more than Wally World, and they definatley don't have the career possiblities. Scoff if you will, but you can start out a stock person and move up into management in a few years then get a job for somebody else. Of course not everyone can, but then not everyone moves into management in any company. You don't even have that choice in an overpriced mom and pop store, once a clerk always a clerk
We may whine about the death of the inner city, but is that really where we want business to be?? To have people drive several miles through traffic laden streets into a downtown area? Better that they are in the suburbs close to where people live, and where other service oriented businesses can thrive.
Times are changing, if those mom and pop businesses can't change and compete, bye-bye....
I appreciate your comments and send my sincere wishes that your son continues to be well. I can think of nothing worse for a parent to go through than having a seriously ill baby. When my wife was pregnant with our second child, my biggest fear was that after the wonderful health of my first born son, that our second born would have something wrong. I literally broke into tears when she emerged in good health. I cannot imagine what emotions must have run through your family during that time.
But there has to be a middle ground. With the cost of our health care system skyrocketing out of control and our ability to use technology more and more, society simply cannot afford to go down that path. You mention that money does not equal the life of a person. But I feel that there has to be limits to what society is responsible for. I don't know at what point enough is enough, but there must be some. Maybe it is a simple quality of life issue. Maybe it's comparing the cost of the healthcare v/s the expected lifespan of the recipient. Spending $300.000 euros to extend the life of a newborn into adulthood is far different than spending the same amount on an 85 year old with terminal cancer.
Another perspective would be people who do not take care of themselves. Should society pay for the chronically obese, smokers or drug addict health costs? What obligation do we put on people to take care of themselves if the government is willing to pay all costs to make them better?
Your mention of exploring space is ironic, considering that many of the technologies that were developed for space flight may have provided for your daughters care. Computers, remote sensors, and improved environmental systems all were improved by the space programs, which were of course born out of the defense industry. Without those very programs, it is possible that the hospital would not have had the technology necessary to provide the equipment your daughter needed.
I agree that killing people has to stop, but I am not about to dismantle our defense system, nor ask others to do so, until all the madmen and fanatics out there are no longer threats. People can argue about whether or not the US should have invaded Iraq, but the facts prove that Saddam was a madman who murdered tens of thousands of his own people. I find it odd that he is not branded with the same label that Adolph Hitler was branded with. Is it only because the people he has slaughtered are Muslim?? Or poor?? Or not white?? (For the record, I am a white male athiest.)
Personally, if everyone put less energy into their religion and more into their actions, maybe then your dream could be realized.
I had similar thoughts when I saw this report on TV. I have to admit, if the baby were my child I probably would do all I could do to keep my child alive.
But are we just talking about the cost, or is there another issue that we have to consider. Technology is getting to the point where just about everyone lives to breeding age. This means that the defective genes these children have are passed on. Are we de-evolving as a species because we improve the chances of living to breeding age?
The only way that I can think to balance this technological conundrum is via genetics. If we could identify and correct such issues in an embryo, or go to the level of the movie Gattaca and pre-select those embryos with the best genes, that would decrease the possiblity of such extreme surgeries. Of course, that then brings up a tremendous number of ethics issues, but none that cannot be worked through, or that some small country won't become a haven for.
Or, in a more cruel line, if you can't afford it, you can't have it. Is it really societies responsibility to make sure that every child has an equal chance at attaining adulthood? Or is it their parents.
The United States has been taking more and more of the responsibility of parenting away from the parent and to the state. Our children are currently taught moral values by state-run schools, sex ed for example. There are numerous examples of parents being brought up on charges for spanking(I'm not talking about beating, I'm talking about a swat on the rump that every American over the age of 40 has had at least two or three times in their lives) or denying health care due to personal or religeous beliefs. Where will it stop?
I don't have the answers, I don't think anyone does. I am of the opinion that if you can't afford it, all you get is basic health care to treat colds, broken bones, etc., and the more expensive health care that is needed for 6 organ transplants are not guarantees. If a family can raise the money or a hospital wants to waive fees so they can try new procedures, those options should always be available.
Come on ... I'm sorry. I do have enough computers in my apartment for myself, my fiancee, and our three cats?? Three are dual boot Windows/Linux and one is Linux only. My fiancee and I send emails to each other even when we are in the same room. That has to count for something....
Oh wait, I think having a female in my life is also grounds for revocation......
Why would I spend $700 for something that is bigger and heavier than my $300 Sony Clie?? It plays MP3s and videos. (I love showing people Golem accepting the MTV award.)
I can get several CDs on an 128MB memory stick and play them in my car using an RF adapter. The MS product does provides more disk space for video, but with the recent advances in micro drives, it's only a matter of time until they start becoming more common in PDAs.
I thought MS was supposed to be better at creating loss leaders <cough> XBox </cough >
- Some of the M boards have 6 channel stereo as well as svideo out
- Any good electrician can get you a power outlet anywhere you want. No visible power cord is necessary. While he is at it, run audio and video cables to the your stereo in the same room, you know, the one with the TV over it?
- I don't see any reason why this thing can't have a DVD slot in the side and a decent hard drive. If you put in a fanless chip, orient it towards the top and put in some vents at the top and bottom, convection should be enough to keep it cool enough.
- Either use Linux or Microsoft with NetMetting enabled and no need for a keyboard or mouse. Or, better yet, hide a wireless keyboard/mouse dongle on it.
VoilaHmmmm...time to start scrounging spare parts.
I have a W2K desktop with an HP deskjet attached, a W2K laptop, and an XP laptop all on a wireless network. The W2K laptop took almost no time to get setup to print. I spent HOURS trying to get the XP to use the printer on the desktop. Finally, the only way I could get it to work was to first connect to a disk share using the desktop username/password. After that, I can use the printer just fine.
... where is the help documentation on this function again?? Where was the support desk I could call? I used Google and Microsoft's knowledgebase and couldn't find out why it wouldn't work. And I am still trying to find that stupid switch which says to only connect disk shares when they are used, not at startup. I've used it before, but damn if I can find it now.
I finally gave up, and to this day my fiancee and I still have to connect to a disk share and give it a username and password before we can print from her eXtra Pretty laptop (which also seems to remove wireless network drivers at random, but that is another story).
Now
I think all of us could find an equal number of issues with both systems to fill a book. Technical people will at least expend an effort to figure out what the problem is and attempt to fix it. Joe Sixpack will just call one of us instead and pay us in beer.
Hmmm...now that I think about it, I am always bugging this guy at work whenever I have car problems....