Basically, Netreg is designed to have two classifications - registered and unregistered, it's not designed to have 3 classes (i.e. + infected).
Unregistered can speak to the registration web server. On this server you can put things like a local mirror of updates/viruses/etc. You can also get more creative with iptables and do even more, such as nat over to windowsupdate, etc.
It does require a bit of work, and is not fully polished, but you can have it do what I described fairly easily.
I also don't have any control over the network infrastructure itself, just over our DHCP server.
With this you have all you need to run a NetReg server within your infrastructure. With this you can allow users to register their machines automatically. Any user with a virus or other such malware gets their dhcp entry deleted, and they are on a private network that goes to where you define. I would allow antivirus sites, antispyware sites, and windowsupdate only (or better yet, a local mirror).
Have them send an e-mail to user@host once this is complete and you can re-activate their lease.
You've looked at Apple's DRM, have you? Yea... no big deal.
Not sure what you meant by that, just saying that Apple locked out a competitor from putting drm'd files on the iPod. In general Apple is a hell of a lot more into vendor lock in than most companies out there and I worry about the real possibility of them becoming a major player in this already fucked up climate.
Apple is just another Mirosoft, only with a tiny market share. If I had to choose between Apple and Mirosoft, I'd pick Linux any day.
Not true! Apple's software works great. As an owner of an iBook and iPod, I must say Apple's stuff is awesome.
I just fear the day that they become a major player. I feel that Apple would leverage a monopoly to milk their users way more than Microsoft would dream of.
It's already happening with the iPod (no iTunes, no DRM music service!). They are much better as a niche player, that said I love their products.
Let me start out by saying IANAL. I am basing all the information here on the faq's and lawyers info within our company.
if apple do internal-only builds with *GPL licensed code, they don't have to release anything to the public, do they?
No! The GPL only comes into effect when you distribute. You are allowed to do whatever you want internally.
if that's true, then it's possible there are many things they've put into their version of the KHTML codebase that later on they either don't want to release as *GPL (as they don't have to, being non public released code
That they can NOT do, they must release any code to any GPL licensed software when they distribute the binaries. Of course the GPL only requires that the source be given to the recipients of the binary if they ask. So Apple releasing code to all is actually a sign of good faith.
or find later infringes on someone else's license (say, patent encumbered code) so they then revise that problematic code out.
If Apple licensed a patent, they would have to specify to the licenser that it's going into GPL code and Apple is required to distribute the source to anyone they distribute binaries to.
Many new laptops can have a hard drive password set in BIOS, that is written to the drive at a low level. Moving the laptop drive to another machine will not let you read the data unless you know the password (or have some really high end equipment to take it apart I imagine).
It looks like the enforcement of this requires the BIOS to interract. I have not been able to find a way to remove this password, but I've had no issues with pulling data from the drives with passwords by just putting them in external usb enclosures.
So although you will not be able to steal machines and sell the hard drive for parts, you can steal the machine and get data if that's what your target is.
We have AOL here too (Australia), but I don't know of a single real person who actually uses it.
Nor do I here in the states. Maybe it's just the circle of people we have around us, doesn't mean that A) AOL is only in America and 2) It's not profitable.
I don't know a single real person who clicks on spam, yet we know that's still profitable!
So in the end no one is accountable. The ISP doesn't make the list MAPS does, so it's not their fault. MAPS says no one has to use their lists so it's not their fault they just make the list. Any collateral damage is just a figment of your imagination. Nobody's fault, nobody's problem.
Not true, it's the people who buy from spammers fault. If spamming weren't so damn profitable, then it would cease to exist. Plain and simple!
You make it sound as though the spam problem that sysadmins deal with is non-existant, guess what buddy . . . without dnsbl's in place there is a good chance that most e-mail servers would be choking and full. Spamming is a real pain in everyones ass, and its going to suck until it's obliterated or until providers take personal responsibility (yeah right...).
This is the major issue I have with many spam lists. You are fed this circular logic and the only way to break the circle is to change ISPs and hope you don't have a problem again.
If you care so much about it, run your own and do as you wish. You don't need to change isp's.
Wow, had no idea you meant in 2002. However I did have an Oracle box running on a standard rh7.2 with little modification in 2002.
Must admit it took a little bit of expertise, but it wasn't that bad. I imagine the word today is very different, and that's the point. Linux from 2002 is a very different animal than it is today, things are progressing at break neck speed.
if some software project is stagnating, it gets forked, and the fork innovates until either the original project dies (see XFree86/X.org split), or until the fork gets merged back into the main project (see gcc/egcs split).
I don't disagree with your post, there have been some projects that split until the original dies but XFree86 is not one of them. X.Org had stagnated for a while, XFree86 came out and started producing a better X Server. After time passed XFree86 started to stagnate and X.Og merged back the changes to produce what we have now. So I personally think this is more akin tot he gcc/egcs split.
MS Office - 100% compatibility with MS Office documents
Not true! Many documents don't open properly in different versions. The 4 most used right now are 97, 2000, XP, 2003 and going between these is still a royal pain in the ass. I'd say MS Office is closer to high 90's than 100% despite Microsoft's claims.
Open Office - 99% compatibility with MS Office documents
For Word Docs it's pretty close to real Office. It doesn't, however, handle Excel macros and a bunch of other different types. As a guess, I think this is closer to mid 80's in compatibility. Still really good, but not perfect.
It's the 1% that's going to go against use of OO in educational establishments.
I think you overstate the improtance. There are already major incompatibilities within Microsoft's own software. For example most budget machines ship with MS Works, which can't properly be read by MS Word at school. Besides any student can just download a copy of OO.o and install it on their machine if they want consistency. If they're on dialup, they can get a usb key and order a free cd from Ubuntu with OO.o included.
While OO supports.doc, exporting to the Microsoft.doc format isn't there, meaning people who only have MS Office (i.e. most people) can't open your document.
Guess I must be using an ubber eleet modified version since I can go to "File -> Save As" and save in any number of formats including.doc.
The default swx format can't be opened by MS Office either, which means there will be some trouble viewing student/teacher documents unless the defaults were changed (or if one was to teach everyone to export to some cross-office compatible format, but that's boiling the ocean...)
Speaking of which, as OpenOffice adoption grows, when in the hell is Microsoft going to add support for those formats. I think it's already past time to do that since the last reports showed that OOo was used in about 10% of businesses.
Closed source projects don't have to publish details about how they classify the state of development efforts.
I think the parent posters point was that there is no ubber stable Microsoft stuff available, everything from Microsoft has a very polished look with a beta feel to it. Might be nice if they split their codebase and allowed people to have stable w/ less features or unstable w/ more features or dev w/ bloat.
But if you fully control the OS, why would you need a virtual machine to improve security - you can put it right into the OS.
The same reason you don't run as root all the time. The same reason the first thing people say on Slashdot when a hack happens on Windows is "stop running as Administrator". To reduce the possible collateral damage in the event of a compromise.
Everyone on slashdot has heard the "security == onion" lecture, so I won't repeat it. Just know that having a virtual machine is another layer in the security onion.
There are actually movies that come on multiple DVDs, perhaps you've seen some of them? We've more than fully exploited the potential of current DVDs, and it's time to move on.
They come on multiple dvd's because we are still using MPEG2. The DVD standard itself is fine, just use mpeg4 and you can get longer video at higher quality. It's the codec, not the format.
1. there were problems brewing between M$ and Intel, so they wanted to be able to switch to a new hardware platform easily.
2. they saw Linux taking over their OS market, and wanted to be ready: Just buy.Net for 99$, and you have all your M$ apps running on top of Linux !
Now with this annoucement makes #2 that much more plausible.
There is a third option:
3. They actually care about security and want to use the inherent security by sandboxing an app into a virtual machine like Java does?!?!
Though I can hardly say that and think Microsoft without giggling . . .
Slashdot Mirror
In all fairness, FOSS does contribute to global terrorism, terrorists regularly make use of FOSS encryption products.
.Net is the best thing since sliced bread.
Come on, everyone knows that Osama Bin Laden uses Windows XP w/SP2, drinks Pepsi, favors emacs, and thinks
Because of this I say we should use Linux/Mac/BSD, drink Coke, use vi, and java!
Basically, Netreg is designed to have two classifications - registered and unregistered, it's not designed to have 3 classes (i.e. + infected).
Unregistered can speak to the registration web server. On this server you can put things like a local mirror of updates/viruses/etc. You can also get more creative with iptables and do even more, such as nat over to windowsupdate, etc.
It does require a bit of work, and is not fully polished, but you can have it do what I described fairly easily.
I also don't have any control over the network infrastructure itself, just over our DHCP server.
With this you have all you need to run a NetReg server within your infrastructure. With this you can allow users to register their machines automatically. Any user with a virus or other such malware gets their dhcp entry deleted, and they are on a private network that goes to where you define. I would allow antivirus sites, antispyware sites, and windowsupdate only (or better yet, a local mirror).
Have them send an e-mail to user@host once this is complete and you can re-activate their lease.
To quote Mythbuster Adam:
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
You've looked at Apple's DRM, have you? Yea... no big deal.
Not sure what you meant by that, just saying that Apple locked out a competitor from putting drm'd files on the iPod. In general Apple is a hell of a lot more into vendor lock in than most companies out there and I worry about the real possibility of them becoming a major player in this already fucked up climate.
Netflix has MANY more distribution centers around the country then either Netflix or Blockbuster.
WOW! That's impressive!?!?!?
Apple is just another Mirosoft, only with a tiny market share. If I had to choose between Apple and Mirosoft, I'd pick Linux any day.
Not true! Apple's software works great. As an owner of an iBook and iPod, I must say Apple's stuff is awesome.
I just fear the day that they become a major player. I feel that Apple would leverage a monopoly to milk their users way more than Microsoft would dream of.
It's already happening with the iPod (no iTunes, no DRM music service!). They are much better as a niche player, that said I love their products.
Let me start out by saying IANAL. I am basing all the information here on the faq's and lawyers info within our company.
if apple do internal-only builds with *GPL licensed code, they don't have to release anything to the public, do they?
No! The GPL only comes into effect when you distribute. You are allowed to do whatever you want internally.
if that's true, then it's possible there are many things they've put into their version of the KHTML codebase that later on they either don't want to release as *GPL (as they don't have to, being non public released code
That they can NOT do, they must release any code to any GPL licensed software when they distribute the binaries. Of course the GPL only requires that the source be given to the recipients of the binary if they ask. So Apple releasing code to all is actually a sign of good faith.
or find later infringes on someone else's license (say, patent encumbered code) so they then revise that problematic code out.
If Apple licensed a patent, they would have to specify to the licenser that it's going into GPL code and Apple is required to distribute the source to anyone they distribute binaries to.
allofmp3.com is illegal. You may as well just say, "I can download the music for free from p2p networks"
Please provide proof of this!
Many new laptops can have a hard drive password set in BIOS, that is written to the drive at a low level. Moving the laptop drive to another machine will not let you read the data unless you know the password (or have some really high end equipment to take it apart I imagine).
It looks like the enforcement of this requires the BIOS to interract. I have not been able to find a way to remove this password, but I've had no issues with pulling data from the drives with passwords by just putting them in external usb enclosures.
So although you will not be able to steal machines and sell the hard drive for parts, you can steal the machine and get data if that's what your target is.
We have AOL here too (Australia), but I don't know of a single real person who actually uses it.
Nor do I here in the states. Maybe it's just the circle of people we have around us, doesn't mean that A) AOL is only in America and 2) It's not profitable.
I don't know a single real person who clicks on spam, yet we know that's still profitable!
There really aren't very many of those people around. Well, unless you have your head stuck firmly in US soil.
.
Perhaps it is you who needs to get their head out of their . .
Well anyways just look at one of these sites:
http://www.aol.co.uk/
http://www.aol.ca/
http://www.aol.de/
http://www.aol.fr/
I would think your in a minority. I would be willing to bet a large segment of the internet population gets regular email from AOL users.
: //www.aol.de/
The internet is more than just the US, thank you.
http://www.aol.co.uk/
http://www.aol.ca/
http
http://www.aol.fr/
What's your point?
So in the end no one is accountable. The ISP doesn't make the list MAPS does, so it's not their fault. MAPS says no one has to use their lists so it's not their fault they just make the list. Any collateral damage is just a figment of your imagination. Nobody's fault, nobody's problem.
...).
Not true, it's the people who buy from spammers fault. If spamming weren't so damn profitable, then it would cease to exist. Plain and simple!
You make it sound as though the spam problem that sysadmins deal with is non-existant, guess what buddy . . . without dnsbl's in place there is a good chance that most e-mail servers would be choking and full. Spamming is a real pain in everyones ass, and its going to suck until it's obliterated or until providers take personal responsibility (yeah right
This is the major issue I have with many spam lists. You are fed this circular logic and the only way to break the circle is to change ISPs and hope you don't have a problem again.
If you care so much about it, run your own and do as you wish. You don't need to change isp's.
Wow, had no idea you meant in 2002. However I did have an Oracle box running on a standard rh7.2 with little modification in 2002.
Must admit it took a little bit of expertise, but it wasn't that bad. I imagine the word today is very different, and that's the point. Linux from 2002 is a very different animal than it is today, things are progressing at break neck speed.
1) Buy RHEL and hope that I or the Soalris guy can make it work. $1500, and we aren't gaurenteed a success. None of the people are Linux people.
This could have easily been replaced with download CentOS and try again.
if some software project is stagnating, it gets forked, and the fork innovates until either the original project dies (see XFree86/X.org split), or until the fork gets merged back into the main project (see gcc/egcs split).
I don't disagree with your post, there have been some projects that split until the original dies but XFree86 is not one of them. X.Org had stagnated for a while, XFree86 came out and started producing a better X Server. After time passed XFree86 started to stagnate and X.Og merged back the changes to produce what we have now. So I personally think this is more akin tot he gcc/egcs split.
It would be cool if it wasn't hardlinks but the ablity to spread a big file over multiple volumes.
You mean like raid? Or do you mean like RAR's file splitting?
MS Office - 100% compatibility with MS Office documents
Not true! Many documents don't open properly in different versions. The 4 most used right now are 97, 2000, XP, 2003 and going between these is still a royal pain in the ass. I'd say MS Office is closer to high 90's than 100% despite Microsoft's claims.
Open Office - 99% compatibility with MS Office documents
For Word Docs it's pretty close to real Office. It doesn't, however, handle Excel macros and a bunch of other different types. As a guess, I think this is closer to mid 80's in compatibility. Still really good, but not perfect.
It's the 1% that's going to go against use of OO in educational establishments.
I think you overstate the improtance. There are already major incompatibilities within Microsoft's own software. For example most budget machines ship with MS Works, which can't properly be read by MS Word at school. Besides any student can just download a copy of OO.o and install it on their machine if they want consistency. If they're on dialup, they can get a usb key and order a free cd from Ubuntu with OO.o included.
While OO supports .doc, exporting to the Microsoft .doc format isn't there, meaning people who only have MS Office (i.e. most people) can't open your document.
.doc.
Guess I must be using an ubber eleet modified version since I can go to "File -> Save As" and save in any number of formats including
The default swx format can't be opened by MS Office either, which means there will be some trouble viewing student/teacher documents unless the defaults were changed (or if one was to teach everyone to export to some cross-office compatible format, but that's boiling the ocean...)
Speaking of which, as OpenOffice adoption grows, when in the hell is Microsoft going to add support for those formats. I think it's already past time to do that since the last reports showed that OOo was used in about 10% of businesses.
What do you think pre-Beta Longhorn code is?
The preferred OS to run Duke Nukem Forever
Closed source projects don't have to publish details about how they classify the state of development efforts.
I think the parent posters point was that there is no ubber stable Microsoft stuff available, everything from Microsoft has a very polished look with a beta feel to it. Might be nice if they split their codebase and allowed people to have stable w/ less features or unstable w/ more features or dev w/ bloat.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(101), 10)'
But if you fully control the OS, why would you need a virtual machine to improve security - you can put it right into the OS.
The same reason you don't run as root all the time. The same reason the first thing people say on Slashdot when a hack happens on Windows is "stop running as Administrator". To reduce the possible collateral damage in the event of a compromise.
Everyone on slashdot has heard the "security == onion" lecture, so I won't repeat it. Just know that having a virtual machine is another layer in the security onion.
There are actually movies that come on multiple DVDs, perhaps you've seen some of them? We've more than fully exploited the potential of current DVDs, and it's time to move on.
They come on multiple dvd's because we are still using MPEG2. The DVD standard itself is fine, just use mpeg4 and you can get longer video at higher quality. It's the codec, not the format.
Collusion is illegal when companies are working together to keep another company's product off the market by predatory pricing, for example.
Hmm... Isn't that what Microsoft does at the mere mention of Linux?
The only two options I could think of were
.Net for 99$, and you have all your M$ apps running on top of Linux !
1. there were problems brewing between M$ and Intel, so they wanted to be able to switch to a new hardware platform easily.
2. they saw Linux taking over their OS market, and wanted to be ready: Just buy
Now with this annoucement makes #2 that much more plausible.
There is a third option:
3. They actually care about security and want to use the inherent security by sandboxing an app into a virtual machine like Java does?!?!
Though I can hardly say that and think Microsoft without giggling . . .