It's not just you...that was the first thing I thought of, too. Surely it'd just be a matter of time before someone discovered the intrusion, isolated it, and released all the gooey details (like, say, the phone home IP address). No need to get Symantec involved...there'd be a race to write and publish the detection code.
I work at a gov't agency where everything is blocked. So I just use citrix to connect to my house via port 443. I can use all the apps (icq, etc) on my home machine no problem.
Doesn't that strike you as unethical?
I think users who (through ignorance, negligence, or malice) fail to respect their organization's security policies are more of a threat than SOAP slipping through (sorry) on port 80.
I agree that a practical ternary computer is unlikely. Rather, the value of the theory might lie in helping us to realize the shortcomings of the binary approach, and the way our familiarity with it molds our thinking. How many of us would have come up with the ternary solution to the coin balance problem?
This was my first thought, too. I'd actually be tempted to start by considering how I'd solution ONE camera, then keep going from there until the economy of scale benefits, all things considered, dried up. Who knows, maybe 1000 self-contained units really is the way to go. Failures would be non-catastrophic and spares would be cheap and easy. Sure, there's got to be some sort of central monitoring (could be as easy as a SNMP console), but keep an open mind.
In other words, the economically disadvantaged should be denied a higher education. You, on the other hand, were born into a social class at least high enough to get you a student loan, so congratulations, you get to be web developer.
You are not proposing a solution. You are proposing the maintenance of the status quo in order to preserve your own superior station.
Education is a debt that society owes to itself. Stop treating it like some privilege you inherited.
Where we use Linux, and where we don't
on
Opposing Open Source?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
FWIW, I'm working on a big ERP implementation. I'm the technical team lead and I worked on the technical architecture at the start of the project two years ago. Linux could conceivably have been a candidate for our database servers, but we didn't short list it (we wound up using Solaris on Sparc). Why?
1) Scalability: Our production servers started life with 8 CPUs and 8GB and were designed to grow from there. Our development servers were smaller, but switching architectures between development and production environments wasn't considered a wise move.
2) Hardware Reliability/Availability: We were not convinced that even high-end Intel boxes could measure up in this area.
3) In-House Expertise: Our sysadmins had extensive experience and certification with Solaris.
4) Vendor Support and Experience: Sun has been doing Solaris on Sparc, and Oracle has been doing Oracle on Solaris on Sparc, alot longer than anybody's been doing Linux on anything. That counts.
5) We didn't need to muck about with the guts of the operating system:)
Short answer: not enough RAS, too much risk. I see this changing thanks to IBM.
We did find a home for Linux on our developers' sandboxes, testing out the latest and greatest. One of our custom utilities runs on Tomcat.
It's interesting that those who deliver the content (cable, satellite providers) and those who deliver the hardware we use to view the content (Sony, TiVo) are finding new and revenue-generating ways (HDTV, digital cable/sat, PVRs) to give their customers what they want (quality picture and sound, flexibility in viewing times), but those who actually PRODUCE the content seem to be doing the same thing they've been doing all along (producing generally low-quality stuff and relying mostly on ad revenues). Is there any way for technology to have a positive influence on the stuff we watch instead of just the way in which we watch it?
The Swiss stuff certainly gets a high whiz-bang-wow-cool rating, but outside of specialized applications, I don't think we need to focus on things such as 3-D web navigation just yet. I mean, we can't even do alot of the stuff that Vannevar Bush described yet.
I'll second that. My firewall/NAT is a 486/66 with 16MB running ThinLinux off a RAM disk...boots off a floppy, tight as a drum, works like a charm 24x7. Check out http://edge.fireplug.net/
I'm seeing alot of SPEC this and SPEC that but unless I'm mistaken most people buying these machines are way more interested in TPC. So until I know how Oracle behaves on a latest-generation Sparc box running Solaris versus a comparable HP box running HP-UX or [insert architecture and OS here], I'm not placing any bets. Besides, as long as price/performance stays reasonably close, Sun users will stick with Sun and HP users will stick with HP and so on. There tends to be too much of an investment (in terms of in-house knowledge, existing software, vendor relationships, etc.) to compel anyone to switch over a relatively minor difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think the idea is for the world to learn that Solaris is a powerful tool. Follow the money...
It's not just you...that was the first thing I thought of, too. Surely it'd just be a matter of time before someone discovered the intrusion, isolated it, and released all the gooey details (like, say, the phone home IP address). No need to get Symantec involved...there'd be a race to write and publish the detection code.
Sounds like a waste of time and money to me.
I work at a gov't agency where everything is blocked. So I just use citrix to connect to my house via port 443. I can use all the apps (icq, etc) on my home machine no problem.
Doesn't that strike you as unethical?
I think users who (through ignorance, negligence, or malice) fail to respect their organization's security policies are more of a threat than SOAP slipping through (sorry) on port 80.
I agree that a practical ternary computer is unlikely. Rather, the value of the theory might lie in helping us to realize the shortcomings of the binary approach, and the way our familiarity with it molds our thinking. How many of us would have come up with the ternary solution to the coin balance problem?
This was my first thought, too. I'd actually be tempted to start by considering how I'd solution ONE camera, then keep going from there until the economy of scale benefits, all things considered, dried up. Who knows, maybe 1000 self-contained units really is the way to go. Failures would be non-catastrophic and spares would be cheap and easy. Sure, there's got to be some sort of central monitoring (could be as easy as a SNMP console), but keep an open mind.
In other words, the economically disadvantaged should be denied a higher education. You, on the other hand, were born into a social class at least high enough to get you a student loan, so congratulations, you get to be web developer.
You are not proposing a solution. You are proposing the maintenance of the status quo in order to preserve your own superior station.
Education is a debt that society owes to itself. Stop treating it like some privilege you inherited.
FWIW, I'm working on a big ERP implementation. I'm the technical team lead and I worked on the technical architecture at the start of the project two years ago. Linux could conceivably have been a candidate for our database servers, but we didn't short list it (we wound up using Solaris on Sparc). Why?
:)
1) Scalability: Our production servers started life with 8 CPUs and 8GB and were designed to grow from there. Our development servers were smaller, but switching architectures between development and production environments wasn't considered a wise move.
2) Hardware Reliability/Availability: We were not convinced that even high-end Intel boxes could measure up in this area.
3) In-House Expertise: Our sysadmins had extensive experience and certification with Solaris.
4) Vendor Support and Experience: Sun has been doing Solaris on Sparc, and Oracle has been doing Oracle on Solaris on Sparc, alot longer than anybody's been doing Linux on anything. That counts.
5) We didn't need to muck about with the guts of the operating system
Short answer: not enough RAS, too much risk. I see this changing thanks to IBM.
We did find a home for Linux on our developers' sandboxes, testing out the latest and greatest. One of our custom utilities runs on Tomcat.
It's interesting that those who deliver the content (cable, satellite providers) and those who deliver the hardware we use to view the content (Sony, TiVo) are finding new and revenue-generating ways (HDTV, digital cable/sat, PVRs) to give their customers what they want (quality picture and sound, flexibility in viewing times), but those who actually PRODUCE the content seem to be doing the same thing they've been doing all along (producing generally low-quality stuff and relying mostly on ad revenues). Is there any way for technology to have a positive influence on the stuff we watch instead of just the way in which we watch it?
If you want a really quiet Linux firewall, try using ThinLinux on a 486. No fans and no hard drive required. Look here for more info.
The Swiss stuff certainly gets a high whiz-bang-wow-cool rating, but outside of specialized applications, I don't think we need to focus on things such as 3-D web navigation just yet. I mean, we can't even do alot of the stuff that Vannevar Bush described yet.
I'll second that. My firewall/NAT is a 486/66 with 16MB running ThinLinux off a RAM disk...boots off a floppy, tight as a drum, works like a charm 24x7. Check out http://edge.fireplug.net/
I'm seeing alot of SPEC this and SPEC that but unless I'm mistaken most people buying these machines are way more interested in TPC. So until I know how Oracle behaves on a latest-generation Sparc box running Solaris versus a comparable HP box running HP-UX or [insert architecture and OS here], I'm not placing any bets. Besides, as long as price/performance stays reasonably close, Sun users will stick with Sun and HP users will stick with HP and so on. There tends to be too much of an investment (in terms of in-house knowledge, existing software, vendor relationships, etc.) to compel anyone to switch over a relatively minor difference.