Basically they are for when data (and performance) is very important and you are willing to spend money for that. You put aside the tech-tough guy attitude of "I can manage it all myself," and accept that the data is that important.
APPLAUSE>> Yes, too many people working for small to medium sized businesses don't understand the needs of "high availability" enterprise data centers with 60,000 plus machines with 20,000 of those being servers. You also can't discount legal requirements for storage and redundancy of legally sensitive data. Believe me, I work in THAT place and my life revolves around "backups" during a good portion of my shifts.
Unfortunately my upstream would not appreciate me calling attention to SAAD in such a manner so unless I want a trouble ticket opened on me, I will have to keep it to myself.
This could be confirmed if we could find out what Dweezil Zappa uses. He has very much followed in the footsteps of his father. He may not be the pioneer that his father was but he tours and play's his fathers music quite often.
Zappa was a one of kind in his industry, like Hunter S. Thompson a true rebel against The Establishment(s)
Necessary for it to be a Peter Jackson production
on
The Hobbit On Hold
·
· Score: 0
I think it's very important that they use the same producers, studio, staff as much as possible so that the look and feel aspects of the production are consistent and in line with the wonderful epic triology. It should really fit seemlessly in with the LOTR. I'm not sure Ian Holm is young enough to play the part of Bilbo however, they did pretty good making him look young in the cave scene, finding The One Ring but I don't think they can swing him doing the entire film. He is talented enough to do it however, I would just hate to see them overlay a bunch of CGI and make him look like a star ware episode 5-6 Yoda.
Exactly, clicking "no" doesn't do shite because the window itself is suspect, all the buttons will execute the same malware. Better to ctrl-alt-delete and kill the process instead or at least X out of the window if you can't use task mgr.
Even the younger generation of college kids still appreciate the tactile usability of that old tool we call a book. Somehow I find it refreshing or heartening to know that the younger generations aren't completely abandoning hardcopy.
With society constantly being assaulted by technology I guess there is still hope when kids rather have a book in their hand instead of the new gadget...I'm sure it's just a matter of time though before that is no longer true.
I agree with your general precept but the very reason that windows IS inherently insecure is because of the need to dumb it down for the average end user...not to mention that constant exploitation by way of malware via IE. Even without EU's running at admin level they should still generally run as at least a Power User...for the average user, otherwise MS won't think their users are getting the full experience. A simple vanilla install by an average user will be terribly insecure in a myriad of ways without specific action being taken that the typical MS user won't have a clue about. It takes a rigorous policy of patching and securing for ANY windows box to be secure. Most of these users aren't willing or even knowledgeable enough to spend the time necessary, at least a couple of hours, to make the new box secure.
By contrast Linux OS's are WAY more secure out of the box without user intervention, without even having to have anti-virus and largely due to the intrinsic security in the UNIX/Linux model. Everything from the kernel to the browser has built in security simply because of it's nature and largely because of it's now nearly 50 years of development when you consider that Linux would not exist without UNIX.
I would take an out of the box Linux distro for security over a Windows box that has been rigorously secured, any given Sunday.
Personally, with my knowledge as a sys admin and IT pro for some 15 years now, it's not MY Windows box that is getting comprised but I've seen SO many that have in so many different environments that I only speak from experience and in defense of the average end-user.
I guess it just reminded me that XP days are numbered and I don't like the thought of it. I've worked in IT for several different companies over the last decade and most of them were XP based at the workstation and many of them may not be able to afford having to buy new corporate licenses. It could mean the loss of IT jobs, in this economy even IT guys like me are losing their jobs. I was one of those unemployed IT guys only a few short weeks ago and it was mainly due to IT downsizing when it happened. If a company is forced to into buying the new fangled MS license that will run them a few hundred thousand they will make up the difference by laying off IT personnel and make the survivors work 2-3 times harder to make up for it.
Not to bash MS but isn't it primarily Windows that is the worst culprit when it comes to IT security? No level of proactive security policies can possibly keep up with the vulnerabilities inherent in the MS OS's. With each iteration new vulnerabilities are discovered and exploited before MS even knows they exist and literally days or even hours after new releases.
This is not the case in environments ix or ux. Until MS puts way more effort into securing their OS's, the world will continue to be a digitally dangerous place.
I have to agree, the war is not just against Usenet but against the 1st Amendment itself. TPTB continue to consolidate their control over content and communication and if they get their way the internet will be entirely controlled by them and the internet, the last vestige of free expression left in the world, will be entirely controlled by the dictatorial political structure because the internet and free speech are a direct threat to their retention of power.
It may be a death by a thousand cuts at the moment but these moves to decommission Usenet are worth a few of those cuts for sure.
We aren't talking about Quickbooks here, we are talking about the software that makes Wallstreet run. It is not a simple fix, it's a matter of revamping entire sectors of our financial system. Only an Anonymous Coward would speak of what they do not know and have no clue about.
Let's put it this way, Wallstreet is invested in XP, whether it's SP2 or SP3, they are invested in it and THEY DO have a say in how the world goes around, if MS doesn't want to get on board, they could be left behind for such unthinkable things as Linux desktops that are more secure and less buggy connected to higher native environments that are even more realiable. MS drones need to wake up or get left behind...the future is now.
I must be doing something right to get a troll rating for a innocuous post that was only slightly critical of MS. My first post in several years even. I guess I'm behind the times, there once was a time when you could be critical of MS without being marginalized. Don't get me wrong, I've been a sysadmin in hybrid network environments for a few years now and I DO have a soft spot for Windows, regardless of what anybody around here thinks, but I also retain the capacity of having the ability to be critical of an OS and corporation that NEEDS to learn how to change with the times and give users credit for their loyalty even if they aren't buying the new hotness being served up at a price.
I see this dumping of SP2 into the bit bucket as an inevitable trend of dumping the entire XP platform which I think is a grave mistake upon the part of MicroSoft and could have a extremely detrimental consequences for the EU as well as the provider. I would just like to see MS be a little less money grubbing and a lot more cognizant of their customers in the long term.
Trends being what they are, MS days could very well be numbered in the big picture.
You can't compare Win 95 to XP. MS was still laying the groundwork for what has been their best PC os, XP and because XP was/has been their best OS it is WIDELY deployed in all of its iterations through out the business world, particularly SP2. Again, most businesses can move to SP3 without issues but there are still some that can't. The ONLY reason they end support for their OS's is to get people to buy their latest and greatest. This is predatory business practice. The customer should be able to decide when they want to upgrade, they shouldn't be forced to do it because of a lack of support.
It's sort of like when you buy a car, you can get parts and service for it almost forever and the maker doesn't force you to buy the new one, you buy it when you want to.
Frankly I don't give much of a crap because what this business practice results in is more and more customers moving to alternative OS's which is what is necessary and needed. The more MS loses market share, the happier I am because they need to be taken down about a dozen peg and realize who their customers are and how making them spend more money on MS in this economy is a bad thing because when companies have to spend money, people lose their jobs...at least these days lately.
The reason why this is a bad thing is because certain companies may have app compatibility issues with SP3 which is why they didn't install the upgrade in the first place if they were smart and discovered the incompatibilities during a beta phase of testing in their environment. Although I doubt there a many like that, they shouldn't be ignored and cut off simply because they have reasons to not upgrade their SP, especially when you consider the cost of MS corp licensing. This is the same reason why a LARGE majority of companies did not move to Vista and even now Win07 due to their 3rd party apps not working on those OS's. I've seen it first hand with financial software that costs literally millions of dollars to obtain corp licensing for. The developers of this software simply aren't ready on their end and there is no reason why a company should HAVE to upgrade just because MS wants more money or compliance (read slavery) from their customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically they are for when data (and performance) is very important and you are willing to spend money for that. You put aside the tech-tough guy attitude of "I can manage it all myself," and accept that the data is that important.
APPLAUSE>> Yes, too many people working for small to medium sized businesses don't understand the needs of "high availability" enterprise data centers with 60,000 plus machines with 20,000 of those being servers. You also can't discount legal requirements for storage and redundancy of legally sensitive data. Believe me, I work in THAT place and my life revolves around "backups" during a good portion of my shifts.
Unfortunately my upstream would not appreciate me calling attention to SAAD in such a manner so unless I want a trouble ticket opened on me, I will have to keep it to myself.
This could be confirmed if we could find out what Dweezil Zappa uses. He has very much followed in the footsteps of his father. He may not be the pioneer that his father was but he tours and play's his fathers music quite often. Zappa was a one of kind in his industry, like Hunter S. Thompson a true rebel against The Establishment(s)
I think it's very important that they use the same producers, studio, staff as much as possible so that the look and feel aspects of the production are consistent and in line with the wonderful epic triology. It should really fit seemlessly in with the LOTR. I'm not sure Ian Holm is young enough to play the part of Bilbo however, they did pretty good making him look young in the cave scene, finding The One Ring but I don't think they can swing him doing the entire film. He is talented enough to do it however, I would just hate to see them overlay a bunch of CGI and make him look like a star ware episode 5-6 Yoda.
Exactly, clicking "no" doesn't do shite because the window itself is suspect, all the buttons will execute the same malware. Better to ctrl-alt-delete and kill the process instead or at least X out of the window if you can't use task mgr.
Even the younger generation of college kids still appreciate the tactile usability of that old tool we call a book. Somehow I find it refreshing or heartening to know that the younger generations aren't completely abandoning hardcopy. With society constantly being assaulted by technology I guess there is still hope when kids rather have a book in their hand instead of the new gadget...I'm sure it's just a matter of time though before that is no longer true.
I agree with your general precept but the very reason that windows IS inherently insecure is because of the need to dumb it down for the average end user...not to mention that constant exploitation by way of malware via IE. Even without EU's running at admin level they should still generally run as at least a Power User...for the average user, otherwise MS won't think their users are getting the full experience. A simple vanilla install by an average user will be terribly insecure in a myriad of ways without specific action being taken that the typical MS user won't have a clue about. It takes a rigorous policy of patching and securing for ANY windows box to be secure. Most of these users aren't willing or even knowledgeable enough to spend the time necessary, at least a couple of hours, to make the new box secure. By contrast Linux OS's are WAY more secure out of the box without user intervention, without even having to have anti-virus and largely due to the intrinsic security in the UNIX/Linux model. Everything from the kernel to the browser has built in security simply because of it's nature and largely because of it's now nearly 50 years of development when you consider that Linux would not exist without UNIX. I would take an out of the box Linux distro for security over a Windows box that has been rigorously secured, any given Sunday. Personally, with my knowledge as a sys admin and IT pro for some 15 years now, it's not MY Windows box that is getting comprised but I've seen SO many that have in so many different environments that I only speak from experience and in defense of the average end-user.
The proper term for this is "snarf" not scrape. http://kltp.kldp.net/eunjea/jargon/?idx=snarf
I guess it just reminded me that XP days are numbered and I don't like the thought of it. I've worked in IT for several different companies over the last decade and most of them were XP based at the workstation and many of them may not be able to afford having to buy new corporate licenses. It could mean the loss of IT jobs, in this economy even IT guys like me are losing their jobs. I was one of those unemployed IT guys only a few short weeks ago and it was mainly due to IT downsizing when it happened. If a company is forced to into buying the new fangled MS license that will run them a few hundred thousand they will make up the difference by laying off IT personnel and make the survivors work 2-3 times harder to make up for it.
Not to bash MS but isn't it primarily Windows that is the worst culprit when it comes to IT security? No level of proactive security policies can possibly keep up with the vulnerabilities inherent in the MS OS's. With each iteration new vulnerabilities are discovered and exploited before MS even knows they exist and literally days or even hours after new releases. This is not the case in environments ix or ux. Until MS puts way more effort into securing their OS's, the world will continue to be a digitally dangerous place.
I have to agree, the war is not just against Usenet but against the 1st Amendment itself. TPTB continue to consolidate their control over content and communication and if they get their way the internet will be entirely controlled by them and the internet, the last vestige of free expression left in the world, will be entirely controlled by the dictatorial political structure because the internet and free speech are a direct threat to their retention of power. It may be a death by a thousand cuts at the moment but these moves to decommission Usenet are worth a few of those cuts for sure.
We aren't talking about Quickbooks here, we are talking about the software that makes Wallstreet run. It is not a simple fix, it's a matter of revamping entire sectors of our financial system. Only an Anonymous Coward would speak of what they do not know and have no clue about. Let's put it this way, Wallstreet is invested in XP, whether it's SP2 or SP3, they are invested in it and THEY DO have a say in how the world goes around, if MS doesn't want to get on board, they could be left behind for such unthinkable things as Linux desktops that are more secure and less buggy connected to higher native environments that are even more realiable. MS drones need to wake up or get left behind...the future is now.
I must be doing something right to get a troll rating for a innocuous post that was only slightly critical of MS. My first post in several years even. I guess I'm behind the times, there once was a time when you could be critical of MS without being marginalized. Don't get me wrong, I've been a sysadmin in hybrid network environments for a few years now and I DO have a soft spot for Windows, regardless of what anybody around here thinks, but I also retain the capacity of having the ability to be critical of an OS and corporation that NEEDS to learn how to change with the times and give users credit for their loyalty even if they aren't buying the new hotness being served up at a price. I see this dumping of SP2 into the bit bucket as an inevitable trend of dumping the entire XP platform which I think is a grave mistake upon the part of MicroSoft and could have a extremely detrimental consequences for the EU as well as the provider. I would just like to see MS be a little less money grubbing and a lot more cognizant of their customers in the long term. Trends being what they are, MS days could very well be numbered in the big picture.
You can't compare Win 95 to XP. MS was still laying the groundwork for what has been their best PC os, XP and because XP was/has been their best OS it is WIDELY deployed in all of its iterations through out the business world, particularly SP2. Again, most businesses can move to SP3 without issues but there are still some that can't. The ONLY reason they end support for their OS's is to get people to buy their latest and greatest. This is predatory business practice. The customer should be able to decide when they want to upgrade, they shouldn't be forced to do it because of a lack of support. It's sort of like when you buy a car, you can get parts and service for it almost forever and the maker doesn't force you to buy the new one, you buy it when you want to. Frankly I don't give much of a crap because what this business practice results in is more and more customers moving to alternative OS's which is what is necessary and needed. The more MS loses market share, the happier I am because they need to be taken down about a dozen peg and realize who their customers are and how making them spend more money on MS in this economy is a bad thing because when companies have to spend money, people lose their jobs...at least these days lately.
The reason why this is a bad thing is because certain companies may have app compatibility issues with SP3 which is why they didn't install the upgrade in the first place if they were smart and discovered the incompatibilities during a beta phase of testing in their environment. Although I doubt there a many like that, they shouldn't be ignored and cut off simply because they have reasons to not upgrade their SP, especially when you consider the cost of MS corp licensing. This is the same reason why a LARGE majority of companies did not move to Vista and even now Win07 due to their 3rd party apps not working on those OS's. I've seen it first hand with financial software that costs literally millions of dollars to obtain corp licensing for. The developers of this software simply aren't ready on their end and there is no reason why a company should HAVE to upgrade just because MS wants more money or compliance (read slavery) from their customers.