The poster didn't mention what OS his Desktop was running. On Win9x/ME you had to install drivers with the Win9x/ME CD in the cd drive, otherwise it wouldn't find system files needed. It wasn't until 2000/XP that this was resolved. This may be what he was talking about, although I could be wrong....
It's not necessarily the developers. It's the hardware vendors. And don't tell me you've never ever had a problem getting hardware to work in Windows.
You're tellin me... Shit I have a belkin USB serial port for my Sony Vaio Laptop. Without the docking station it doesn't have a serial port, and as a Sys Admin I need to console into a bunch of things from time to time.
The Windows driver is a piece of shit, whenever I hit disconnect I can not reconnect again without rebooting. The Windows driver comes from Belkin.
The Linux kernel detects this just fine, assigns it ttyUSB0 and it works every time. No added driver, no magic, and supports disconnecting from USB. Personally I think it's Linux that has hardware support right. Windows has a wider array of hardware support, but none of it is supported as well as in Linux.
If you don't believe me, get a new machine with an EtherExpress 100 nic, Linux will detect it no matter the iteration. Windows will say what's an EtherExpress Nic. So you download from intel or the manufacturer of the pc only to realize that there are literally dozens of different EtherExpress, each with 10-50 mb driver downloads. So you download them, burn to cd and then try to install it on the Windows box. Eventually one will work. That's not the case in Linux....
I could be wrong, but I think you're looking for VBricks. You can hook them up on each end and do video over ip. You can even get a few of them and set up a multicast.
They are broadcast quality, used by many tv stations, IE NOT CHEAP for Mpeg2. However you could probably find them on eBay for a few hundred for the standard mpeg 1 feeds.
It's arrogant to refuse teaming up with Real Networks? Is this Slashdot? Do we like Real now?
Very good point. Lack of clones is what kept them out of most desktops. Lack of available parts and proper redundancy keeps them out of the server room. Apple is stupid, and it's not getting any better...
Seems Microsoft will cook up something here soon, just to spite them... and they might manage that easily, especially if Apple is alone and outnumbered.
No doubt they're working on it as is. I'll wait until there is an Ogg based Online Music Service w/ No DRM. DRM only gets in the way of people who buy it, most warez'ers use mp3...
Very sad that users who buy get less than users who don't.
It's arrogant to refuse teaming up with Real Networks? Is this Slashdot? Do we like Real now?
No, we don't like Real. We just dislike Apple's arrogance. Apple wants to be a monopoly, they go after everyone and anything. If they were somehow the dominant desktop, things would probably be much worse than they are now in terms of leveraging monopolies.........
I agree with child poster. Just install Firefox. I use it. It uses less ram than IE, blocks popups, has a nifty built in Google search bar, has tabbed browsing (multiple webpages open in single window) and blocks annoying java and activex. Try it. It kicks the ass of IE, even with the Google Toolbar.
How does Firefox block Java? I'm playing Bookworm (Yahoo! Games) on Firefox w/ Java. I can remove Java, thereby removing Firefox's access to Java. But then again IE doesn't even ship with Java. XP SP1a removed it.
Re:Two blue screens of death for the price of one.
on
Dual User Windows PC
·
· Score: 1
Or worse, when the machine craps out (and runnin windows you know it will....) you'll have to reinstall XP TWICE!?!?!?!?
[To make the system more secure] . . . software owners would subscribe to an automated patch service. . . . Subscribers would receive a predeployed, encrypted version of the patch.
That entire statement sums the entirety of the useful information in this article. Erase the whole thing and leave that statement. (I'm mean. Sorry.)
I see a logic flaw, i mean how hard would it be to run a program that scans the machine and makes a baseline install the patch and then rescan the machine for changes. Not hard at all, this would leave you with an unencrypted patch. Microsoft includes a tool to do this very thing in Win2k Server CD.
I don't see how this could help any, AT ALL. I see this as a way to make money for software companies (you will probably have to pay for this subscription service) and making it harder for Joe User at home to get their hands on exploits. Sure companies won't get hit as hard, but Joe will. Being Slashdot, let me phrase it in Slashdot terms... Imagine a beowulf of Joe user's computers DDoS'ing, spam relaying and overall being bad internet neighbors. Not too different from the situation now, except that at least now they have a choice to install those damn patches.
This article is pretty interesting, but it is built on the assumption that vulnerabilities usually don't have exploits in the wild until the patch comes out. Sometimes that is true (as his examples show), sometimes it is not. The problem is showing the difference.
In his article he also equates the fact that the exploit came out for ISS's software immediately after the patch was released. Eeye had found it 10 days before the patch was released, why does he assume that the only ones that had found it and knew were Eeye and ISS?
It's just as likely that the software developers and the coders were both working on the same issue , one to exploit and one to patch. It could just as easily have been the exploit and then the patch. We don't know how the exploit was created, when it was started and how much time they worked on it. And as long as that is the case, bugs need to be fixed asap.
What's the point of a secondary dns to keep mail working properly if the mail server is probably sitting right next to the primary DNS? If the first location gets whacked, the mail still has no place to go.
Had you not read my post? I had clearly stated that: It's very cheap to pay a hosting company a monthly fee to provide a backup mail server to spool when your primary is down.
If e-mail is important to you, there really isn't a reason why you can't have two dns servers on different networks. It's cheap to free, and available.
If e-mail is not important, then there isn't a point in having a secondary dns to allow for mail to be spooled.
My point was, that there is more to the internet than just the web. And the web is not the only thing that relies upon the dns.
Remember that the backup DNS really shouldn't be geographically located near the primary. Even though 9/10 they are on the same network sadly.
Yes, it would be terrible if your network is down and people weren't able to resolve your hostnames in order to connect to your web servers which are also down. Really, what's the point of that unless you have multiple geographically diverse webservers as well?
The Web is not the internet, when will people get this? It's very cheap to pay a hosting company a monthly fee to provide a backup mail server to spool when your primary is down. Secondary NS's should be available if the primary goes down if just to keep mail working properly.
In addition, there are many free services out there like GraniteCanyon that will host your secondary ns for free. So there really isn't a reason to do it wrong.
So basically, then, that makes it so that if the user gets infected by something, all it can do is destroy that user's personal files, and propogate over the network, as opposed to doing all that AND making the user have to reinstall Windows by mucking with system stuff?
That's nice for administratos--they can clean the machine just by wiping that user, but for the user that is not going to make much difference.
Let's see, 1 hour of downtime while we reimage and reconfigure your machine vs. 1 minute to clear out your profile and let me work on pulling your data from a good known back up.
On linux, UNIX, and MacOS, running VNC securely is trivial. The fact that it's more work on Windows is a limitation of Windows, not VNC.
Not nessecarily. It's more of a limitation of the original protocol. Remember you use VNC over SSH. It's not cumbersome on UNIX. But in Windows where SSH is not there by default it is cumbersome. Different tool for a different architecture style altogether.
Note that for the regular edition of XP, you don't even have a choice: it just doesn't support RDP.
Very Good Point. I had forgotten that because I hardly ever use Windows, and when I do it is normally XP Pro.
Even if it did, if you started relying on it, you'd have to worry about MSFT making incompatible changes with any upgrade.
I see this as highly unlikely myself. Microsoft wouldn't change a protocol that allows other OS users connect to Windows because then Windows won't be as useful to people who use other OS's. They want to sell more products, not less....
Besides the Mac client is by M$. The Linux implementation would probably have an update within a few hours of the change.
However, it doesn't sound like this is the case. It sounds like the asker will be using this system lightly to moderately, over a local network. Therefore, can you justify this:
WinConnect Server XP can be purchased for US $299.95 for a three user license.
Even if it's only $100 for one user, for the kind of use he implies, that money could be better spent. VNC (and ssh---yes, even through Cygwin---if necessary) sounds just right; RD would be overkill.
XP doesn't need WinConnect Server XP to do Remote Desktop. For a single user XP works fine with RD and since it will be headless it shouldn't be a problem whatsoever.
RD on a single user XP machine is probably the best solution.
I brought up WinConnect in reply to a user two parent posts up, who had said that if you wanted more than one user you have to get Win2k w/ a Terminal Services license. My point was, you don't.
Of course, VNC is encrypted, it just isn't built into all VNC clients/servers. Usually, people run it over ssh, which has the added advatage over Remote Desktop that you don't need any new firewall rules (since ssh usually is already there) and that you don't have to figure out a new key management system.
I've been using VNC since it's inception and it works great for Unix to Unix with SSH doing the encryption. Here we are talkin Linux/Mac OS to Unix. Unless you buy some commercial SSH Server, or set up cygwin's ssh server on the Windows box then it's probably not going to be encrypted.
Most VNC's use encryption only for the password and use plaintext transfers for everything else. Not my ideal solution. Remote Desktop has encryption built into the protocol from the start.
If you like, of course, you can also run VNC over stunnel or IPsec.
I don't even think IPSec allows for you to communicate with machines on the same LAN on the same Subnet. Besides Remote Desktop has encryption covered already. We're talkin Linux/Mac to Windows communication. This is stupid any which way you cut it. Unix to Unix would use VNC over SSH. Who in their right mind would do something this stupid.
When it is useful, some VNC clients/servers (e.g. clients running as Java applets) have the encryption built in.
Name one that does encryption from beginning to end, not just the password. I would like to know if there are any myself.
As usual, the UNIX solution is simpler, more elegant, more flexible, and more functional than the Windows solution. And, as usual, Windows users like yourself just don't get it.
As usual trolls like yourself don't bother to read what the user is asking and bash anyone who doesn't tell them to switch to Unix. Your zealotry is only overshadowed by your stupidity.
Remote Desktop is much better than VNC, especially when used over the internet because VNC is not encrypted at all. Remote Desktop includes built in 128 bit encryption.
Perhaps it is only on by default in Win2k Standard, but Advanced Server has never installed IIS by default for me.
It's weird. I've seen things go both ways on Microsoft Products. All sorts of wierd inconsistancies.
Once I installed Win98 and when I ran IE it asked me if I wanted to sign up with an ISP or choose 'Already Connected'. Another disk I ran across ran the MSN Wizard and tried to shoehorn me into signing up for MSN when I already had DSL. I had to properties the IE and change a/msnsomething flag to continue.
Technology improvements, actually. First there's the fact that even DSL bandwidth is too little for a real movie.
I'm not so sure about that. There aren't any real limitations with the DSL technology as far as bandwidth is concerned. If you click here, you will see that people in other countries have 45 mbps DSL for approximately $40 US
I bet companies are lagging to go forward with Linux for business use is mostly because StarOffice still isn't 100% compatible to Microsoft Office docs. 95% compatible isn't good enough for the business world. Risking sending a Document to someone in another company and having it blow up on them isn't worth the risk. Of course are lots of other reasons for Linux not spreading like wildfire, but that is a big problem.
Two things.
1) You overestimate Star/OO.o's compatibility. I think 90% is probably closer to reality
and
2) You overestimate MS's compatibility with their older Office versions...
Slashdot Mirror
The poster didn't mention what OS his Desktop was running. On Win9x/ME you had to install drivers with the Win9x/ME CD in the cd drive, otherwise it wouldn't find system files needed. It wasn't until 2000/XP that this was resolved. This may be what he was talking about, although I could be wrong....
It's not necessarily the developers. It's the hardware vendors. And don't tell me you've never ever had a problem getting hardware to work in Windows.
You're tellin me... Shit I have a belkin USB serial port for my Sony Vaio Laptop. Without the docking station it doesn't have a serial port, and as a Sys Admin I need to console into a bunch of things from time to time.
The Windows driver is a piece of shit, whenever I hit disconnect I can not reconnect again without rebooting. The Windows driver comes from Belkin.
The Linux kernel detects this just fine, assigns it ttyUSB0 and it works every time. No added driver, no magic, and supports disconnecting from USB. Personally I think it's Linux that has hardware support right. Windows has a wider array of hardware support, but none of it is supported as well as in Linux.
If you don't believe me, get a new machine with an EtherExpress 100 nic, Linux will detect it no matter the iteration. Windows will say what's an EtherExpress Nic. So you download from intel or the manufacturer of the pc only to realize that there are literally dozens of different EtherExpress, each with 10-50 mb driver downloads. So you download them, burn to cd and then try to install it on the Windows box. Eventually one will work. That's not the case in Linux....
This is great for people who have kids. No longer does anyone have to worry about those priests molesting children.
Finally the hierarchy has done something that works on stopping children from getting molested.....
Let's face it, cybersex is much easier to fend off...
so is the ms word reader.
Yeah, because I'm sure that Microsoft makes it available for the same platforms as Adobe....
I could be wrong, but I think you're looking for VBricks. You can hook them up on each end and do video over ip. You can even get a few of them and set up a multicast.
They are broadcast quality, used by many tv stations, IE NOT CHEAP for Mpeg2. However you could probably find them on eBay for a few hundred for the standard mpeg 1 feeds.
http://www.vbrick.com/products/vb_3000.asp
It's arrogant to refuse teaming up with Real Networks? Is this Slashdot? Do we like Real now?
Very good point. Lack of clones is what kept them out of most desktops. Lack of available parts and proper redundancy keeps them out of the server room. Apple is stupid, and it's not getting any better...
Seems Microsoft will cook up something here soon, just to spite them... and they might manage that easily, especially if Apple is alone and outnumbered.
No doubt they're working on it as is. I'll wait until there is an Ogg based Online Music Service w/ No DRM. DRM only gets in the way of people who buy it, most warez'ers use mp3...
Very sad that users who buy get less than users who don't.
It's arrogant to refuse teaming up with Real Networks? Is this Slashdot? Do we like Real now?
No, we don't like Real. We just dislike Apple's arrogance. Apple wants to be a monopoly, they go after everyone and anything. If they were somehow the dominant desktop, things would probably be much worse than they are now in terms of leveraging monopolies.........
I agree with child poster. Just install Firefox. I use it. It uses less ram than IE, blocks popups, has a nifty built in Google search bar, has tabbed browsing (multiple webpages open in single window) and blocks annoying java and activex. Try it. It kicks the ass of IE, even with the Google Toolbar.
How does Firefox block Java? I'm playing Bookworm (Yahoo! Games) on Firefox w/ Java. I can remove Java, thereby removing Firefox's access to Java. But then again IE doesn't even ship with Java. XP SP1a removed it.
Or worse, when the machine craps out (and runnin windows you know it will....) you'll have to reinstall XP TWICE!?!?!?!?
or Caltech. I would think that the University running the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for NASA would have wireless access...
[To make the system more secure] . . . software owners would subscribe to an automated patch service. . . . Subscribers would receive a predeployed, encrypted version of the patch.
That entire statement sums the entirety of the useful information in this article. Erase the whole thing and leave that statement. (I'm mean. Sorry.)
I see a logic flaw, i mean how hard would it be to run a program that scans the machine and makes a baseline install the patch and then rescan the machine for changes. Not hard at all, this would leave you with an unencrypted patch. Microsoft includes a tool to do this very thing in Win2k Server CD.
I don't see how this could help any, AT ALL. I see this as a way to make money for software companies (you will probably have to pay for this subscription service) and making it harder for Joe User at home to get their hands on exploits. Sure companies won't get hit as hard, but Joe will. Being Slashdot, let me phrase it in Slashdot terms... Imagine a beowulf of Joe user's computers DDoS'ing, spam relaying and overall being bad internet neighbors. Not too different from the situation now, except that at least now they have a choice to install those damn patches.
This article is pretty interesting, but it is built on the assumption that vulnerabilities usually don't have exploits in the wild until the patch comes out. Sometimes that is true (as his examples show), sometimes it is not. The problem is showing the difference.
In his article he also equates the fact that the exploit came out for ISS's software immediately after the patch was released. Eeye had found it 10 days before the patch was released, why does he assume that the only ones that had found it and knew were Eeye and ISS?
It's just as likely that the software developers and the coders were both working on the same issue , one to exploit and one to patch. It could just as easily have been the exploit and then the patch. We don't know how the exploit was created, when it was started and how much time they worked on it. And as long as that is the case, bugs need to be fixed asap.
What's the point of a secondary dns to keep mail working properly if the mail server is probably sitting right next to the primary DNS? If the first location gets whacked, the mail still has no place to go.
Had you not read my post? I had clearly stated that:
It's very cheap to pay a hosting company a monthly fee to provide a backup mail server to spool when your primary is down.
If e-mail is important to you, there really isn't a reason why you can't have two dns servers on different networks. It's cheap to free, and available.
If e-mail is not important, then there isn't a point in having a secondary dns to allow for mail to be spooled.
My point was, that there is more to the internet than just the web. And the web is not the only thing that relies upon the dns.
Remember that the backup DNS really shouldn't be geographically located near the primary. Even though 9/10 they are on the same network sadly.
Yes, it would be terrible if your network is down and people weren't able to resolve your hostnames in order to connect to your web servers which are also down. Really, what's the point of that unless you have multiple geographically diverse webservers as well?
The Web is not the internet, when will people get this? It's very cheap to pay a hosting company a monthly fee to provide a backup mail server to spool when your primary is down. Secondary NS's should be available if the primary goes down if just to keep mail working properly.
In addition, there are many free services out there like GraniteCanyon that will host your secondary ns for free. So there really isn't a reason to do it wrong.
that's right...
Consult the man when you need answers....
So basically, then, that makes it so that if the user gets infected by something, all it can do is destroy that user's personal files, and propogate over the network, as opposed to doing all that AND making the user have to reinstall Windows by mucking with system stuff?
That's nice for administratos--they can clean the machine just by wiping that user, but for the user that is not going to make much difference.
Let's see, 1 hour of downtime while we reimage and reconfigure your machine vs. 1 minute to clear out your profile and let me work on pulling your data from a good known back up.
On linux, UNIX, and MacOS, running VNC securely is trivial. The fact that it's more work on Windows is a limitation of Windows, not VNC.
Not nessecarily. It's more of a limitation of the original protocol. Remember you use VNC over SSH. It's not cumbersome on UNIX. But in Windows where SSH is not there by default it is cumbersome. Different tool for a different architecture style altogether.
Note that for the regular edition of XP, you don't even have a choice: it just doesn't support RDP.
Very Good Point. I had forgotten that because I hardly ever use Windows, and when I do it is normally XP Pro.
Even if it did, if you started relying on it, you'd have to worry about MSFT making incompatible changes with any upgrade.
I see this as highly unlikely myself. Microsoft wouldn't change a protocol that allows other OS users connect to Windows because then Windows won't be as useful to people who use other OS's. They want to sell more products, not less....
Besides the Mac client is by M$. The Linux implementation would probably have an update within a few hours of the change.
Except RDP was never meant to be used over the Internet. It is vulnerable to a Man-in-the-Middle attack.
Would you mind pointing me to proof of this statement?
However, it doesn't sound like this is the case. It sounds like the asker will be using this system lightly to moderately, over a local network. Therefore, can you justify this:
WinConnect Server XP can be purchased for US $299.95 for a three user license.
Even if it's only $100 for one user, for the kind of use he implies, that money could be better spent. VNC (and ssh---yes, even through Cygwin---if necessary) sounds just right; RD would be overkill.
XP doesn't need WinConnect Server XP to do Remote Desktop. For a single user XP works fine with RD and since it will be headless it shouldn't be a problem whatsoever.
RD on a single user XP machine is probably the best solution.
I brought up WinConnect in reply to a user two parent posts up, who had said that if you wanted more than one user you have to get Win2k w/ a Terminal Services license. My point was, you don't.
Of course, VNC is encrypted, it just isn't built into all VNC clients/servers. Usually, people run it over ssh, which has the added advatage over Remote Desktop that you don't need any new firewall rules (since ssh usually is already there) and that you don't have to figure out a new key management system.
I've been using VNC since it's inception and it works great for Unix to Unix with SSH doing the encryption. Here we are talkin Linux/Mac OS to Unix. Unless you buy some commercial SSH Server, or set up cygwin's ssh server on the Windows box then it's probably not going to be encrypted.
Most VNC's use encryption only for the password and use plaintext transfers for everything else. Not my ideal solution. Remote Desktop has encryption built into the protocol from the start.
If you like, of course, you can also run VNC over stunnel or IPsec.
I don't even think IPSec allows for you to communicate with machines on the same LAN on the same Subnet. Besides Remote Desktop has encryption covered already. We're talkin Linux/Mac to Windows communication. This is stupid any which way you cut it. Unix to Unix would use VNC over SSH. Who in their right mind would do something this stupid.
When it is useful, some VNC clients/servers (e.g. clients running as Java applets) have the encryption built in.
Name one that does encryption from beginning to end, not just the password. I would like to know if there are any myself.
As usual, the UNIX solution is simpler, more elegant, more flexible, and more functional than the Windows solution. And, as usual, Windows users like yourself just don't get it.
As usual trolls like yourself don't bother to read what the user is asking and bash anyone who doesn't tell them to switch to Unix. Your zealotry is only overshadowed by your stupidity.
Or you can get a Windows XP machine, and buy WinConnect Server XP. It allows you to have up to 21 Terminal Server connections on Windows XP.
It works really well. I'd also suggest using rdesktop on Linux and the Windows Remote Desktop Client on the Mac.
Remote Desktop is much better than VNC, especially when used over the internet because VNC is not encrypted at all. Remote Desktop includes built in 128 bit encryption.
Wrong. IIS IS on by default. You are probably thinking of W2K Pro.
p /3 090591
/msnsomething flag to continue.
http://www.serverwatch.com/tutorials/article.ph
Perhaps it is only on by default in Win2k Standard, but Advanced Server has never installed IIS by default for me.
It's weird. I've seen things go both ways on Microsoft Products. All sorts of wierd inconsistancies.
Once I installed Win98 and when I ran IE it asked me if I wanted to sign up with an ISP or choose 'Already Connected'. Another disk I ran across ran the MSN Wizard and tried to shoehorn me into signing up for MSN when I already had DSL. I had to properties the IE and change a
I'm not so sure about that. There aren't any real limitations with the DSL technology as far as bandwidth is concerned. If you click here, you will see that people in other countries have 45 mbps DSL for approximately $40 US
LINK
I bet companies are lagging to go forward with Linux for business use is mostly because StarOffice still isn't 100% compatible to Microsoft Office docs. 95% compatible isn't good enough for the business world. Risking sending a Document to someone in another company and having it blow up on them isn't worth the risk. Of course are lots of other reasons for Linux not spreading like wildfire, but that is a big problem.
Two things.
1) You overestimate Star/OO.o's compatibility. I think 90% is probably closer to reality
and
2) You overestimate MS's compatibility with their older Office versions...
IIS is not default for every Win2k Server installation. You have to install it manually.