I once had an MCSE ask me, in all seriousness, why he couldn't type a fully-qualified hostname to choose a DNS server. It's a paper qualification; it implies no real skill or insight into the system's operation, or any sort of reasoning into consequences of limited design.
This is limited to MCSE's only? No other subset of users can make this kind of error?
Therefore, I consider MS fanatics to be, for the most part, a self-limiting reaction
What is a MS Fanatic? Is that anything like a Linux fanatic? I don't see many people saying "Screw RedHat, screw FreeBSD, MICROSOFT RULES!". On the contrary, I see a LOT of OS bigotry from self-proclaimed *nix professionals, who naysay and poo-poo an operating system just because it comes from a particular vendor. A true professional evaluates the problem, and figures out what OS/software best fits the situation. There has been plenty of times that we've thrown out Solaris/SCO/Linux in favor of Windows, because Windows offered the best solution for what we were doing.
I think the more relevent question is with regards to the operating system's track record. With the exception of the recent blight of Red Hat 7.0, Linux has probably had far less documented bugs, and because of the UNIX user permissions model, the damages are minimum.
Your analysis is flawed. Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money is. Microsoft OS's get so much focus because they're so widely used. The recent slew of RedHat hacks that have emerged is due to the RedHat distro being the most popular. It follows that a popular OS is going to get attention. NT/2k also has a user permission system. I'm sure any professional who has worked with NT before would be aware of this. When the permissions are applied as documented and recommended by Microsoft the damages are as minimal as on a Unix sysytem.
Compare this to Windows. Bugs all over the place, some more serious than those in Linux, some less serious.
That's a highly astute observation there. Tell me, can a bug in Windows be of equal seriousness as a bug in Linux? I see an awful lot of exploits for Linux. Can you back up your claim of "bugs all over the place" for Windows with any kind of numbers, or are you just speaking from the heart? Linux certainly has a pretty good library of bugs and exploits.
Where most machines are running 9x/Me with *no* user/process security whatsoever, malicious code can run rampant
Actually, ALL Win9x/ME machines have no user process security. But those OS's weren't designed to have that. If you want user process security, use NT/Win2k. 9x/ME were designed as a consumer platform, not for business. Microsoft doesn't recommend using Win9x the corporate environment.
NT/2000 is an improvement, but it's not designed into every aspect of the operating system's historical architecture.
Actually, it is. You're arguing from a point of igonrance. Try actually USING the operating system for a while, for something other then launching telnet. All processes in NT/Win2k run under the contect of the user that spawned it.
Windows has been one patch to DOS 1.0 after another, and the final result is such a kludge and so many processes are running with full administrative priviledges that the task of exploiting a bug remains trivial.
This is bullshit again. If you have so many processes launching under Administrator, I would suggest not having your services run under that account, and stop logging in as Administrator on your system. Do you log in as root on your Unix systems regularly? Best practices for both OS's say not to use root/Administrator unless something calls for special permission that superuser account has.
Running Windows 2000 on my desktop is farcical - half my software won't work properly if I don't give my user account admin priviledges.
Bullshit again. Normal client software doesn't require Administrator access to run. Installing software on a Win2k/NT box requires superuser permissions, but HEY! That's a security feature, and Windows doesn't have that, right? Lazy people who don't want to configure they systems properly run their services under a superuser account, and we all know what THAT means. Even in a Linux world. I certainly don't need Administrator permission to launch Office, Explorer, or any other normal user process. Unless your system is SO badly configured, a user started process CANNOT just run as Administrator simply because it wants to, unless it's a service which has been configured to run as Administrator (in which it's your fault for doing so), or you're logged in as Administrator.
It amazes me how many allegedly Windows 2000 compatible programs decide that they're going to attempt to store temporary information in the system registry instead of the roving user registries.
Because software installed on a Windows sytem is system-wide. If you want to prevent someone from launching a particular application, use POLEDIT and edit their profile to stop them, or *GOSH* maybe change the NTFS permissions to prevent someone from accessing the executable? Don't tell me that you don't use chmod in the Unix world?!
The single system registry is dangerous, too. Imagine, in your *NIX/etc/ directory, the file everything.conf, with the permissions -rw-rw-r--. What if you decide that you don't want Joe User to see your firewall configuration? Make everything.conf readable only to sys admins? Then, all of a sudden, all of the daemons have to have admin priviledges just to see their configuration. Urk. Kludge. Messy, dangerous kludge.
Of course, nobody would expect you to know that you could set permissions on individual Registry keys, and restrict.ini files to SYSTEM and Administrator... Of course you wouldn't. You obviously spend a lot more time bawling about imagined wrongs in Windows than you do learning about it. MCSEs learn all about that stuff, though. Fancy that.
Contrast this to Linux or any other UNIX variant, the whole model and concept of which was designed with user and process security and isolation from the ground up.
Yeah, fancy that Microsoft wouldn't consider that. I guess the Internet Guest account can launch any damn process it wants, or any user on a Terminal Server can stop any other process, even if it doesn't belong to him. Not. IUSR_ cannot simply just add itself to the Domain Admins group, just because someone is using a directory traversal exploit(which wouldn't be a problem in itself if the admins simply INSTALLED THE DAMN PATCHES) because OH MY GOD! That process cannot be spawned by a non-Administrator account!
As a bonus, the added complexity of administering multiple accounts to the average user is a pain in the butt. They want point-and-drool, everything clean and simple and familiar.
Point-and-drool? Do you really hold your users in such low regard?
Actually, administering a NT/Win2k mixed domain is quite easy, and I use the command line a lot. But you're expecting regular everyday users (who probably just use a PC at home for email and pr0n surfing) to suddenly have knowledge of a 20 year Unix engineer simply because you're in the building. There's no need for GUIs in Linux, no siree. Things line KDE and Gnome are simply figments of my imagination. Windows domains don't require a person to have multiple accounts. Microsoft has stressed from the beginning the "unified login", where one account is sufficient. Sounds like you really need the services of an MCSE.
The beauty of the complexity of Linux/UNIX versus Windows is that it weeds out the chaff who aren't capable of managing a box.
Complexity can come and bite itself in the ass. Is complexity always a good thing? We've chucked out Linux and Unix solutions in favor of Windows simply because it Didn't Work. Linux isn't the Wonder Platform that a lot of people try to make it out to be.
I'm sure the programmers and architects at M$ see the problems and comparisons I'm drawing. To be designing an operating system, you must love computers and a sense of a job well done, so I'm sure it pains them that they have to deal with such kludges day in and day out. I'm sure they'd dump the whole thing and fix it if they could, but the marketing guys won't let them implement it.
I hope you're sending your resume to Microsoft right after reading this. Actually, I don't, since you haven't the first clue about Windows or its security model. Instead of the usual Windows-bashing, why not take a few minutes out of the day and actually LEARN the OS? It sounds like your workstation needs to be reconfigured anyway.
I've administered many Windows domains, both NT and Win2k, that are directly connected to the Internet, and have a large internal userbase. And I've never ONCE had any major security problems. Maybe I'm a "gifted" MCSE, or The One who will bring balance to the Force, but to me, none of your arguments hold water.
Re:Standard Configuration is Console's Advantage
on
X-server for PS2
·
· Score: 1
No, it doesn't *just work*. Consoles are essentially computers with identical hardware, and the OS burned into ROM. Installing an alternate OS is going to require configuration and tweaking. Software doesn't magically become stable, self-installing and self-configuring just because you're running it on a dedicated games platform. If that was the case, everyone would be running their server on Dreamcasts.
OK, this has been bothering me for some time now... WHY? What's the use of putting Linux on a PS2? Just because? I have a toaster that anyone is welcome to try installing Linux on Just Because. For the same price of a PS2, you can get the parts to make a more robust Linux box (or I'm certain all you DIY Linux people already have the parts sitting around to build at least 2 Linux servers). It's a damn game console. If someone needs an excuse to buy a PS2, it should be because they want to play games, not try to cobble together a Linux box on a platform that's not really expandable or particularly robust for the OS.
Makes me laugh... in a predictable wave of Linux-zealotry, some well meaning people forgot that the person is NOT running Linux. So suggestions like Pango and the like, while informative, aren't very helpful.
Remember: There are OTHER operating systems that are alternatives to Windows that aren't Linux.
I think the kid should not only have the suspension lifted, I also think the teacher should pay the kid the reward that he was promised.
It was never said how much the "reward" was, just that the teacher wanted 10% (conspiracy to commit a crime, anyone? It would certainly be fair, especially if the kid was facing punishment for breaking the law). The teacher could give him ninety cents, and say the reward was a dollar, less his 10%. And he gets screwed twice by the same teacher. Isn't education wonderful?
You mean Scumbag San Khuri from Benchmark Print Supply? He got slapped silly with a couple of lawsuits. One of them from Europe. Currently, he's under a restraining order from sending spam ever again.
Deja article here
Other approaches?
Where I come from, we have a saying: Shit or get off the pot. Whining about the evils of MAPS/ORBS/DUL won't get you anywhere. Come up with your own solution, or Just Do Something. Otherwise, it's business as usual, neh?
Strange how people accuse Microsoft of being mental midgets and total incompetents, yet theyr'e devious enough to come up with these stock and Permatemp schemes.
Terminal velocity? It would the same if you bolted the mouse to a desk and tossed it out the window. Galileo and his famous experiment, you see... Perhaps you were meaning the amount of force generated on impact?
F=mv
No ball. It's pressure operated.
But suprisingly, Microsoft makes an EXCELLENT USB optical mouse. Maybe they should ditch their OS divsion and concentrate on hardware and games.
The EULA for WinNT4.0 requires you to scroll down to the bottom before you can hit F8 to agree. Strangely enough, the EULA for Win2k doesn't have this. NT's the only MS product I've seen that has its EULA set up this way.
IIRC (having read Dune only once), but wasn't it revealed towards the end that the Sarduakar and the Fremen were related? In Lynch's movie this wasn't even hinted at... just a mention of Fremen fighting ability and ferocity when Aliyah was brought before the Emperor. The miniseries also glossed over this, with just Paul mentioning that if the "smuggler" was able to get past his bodyguards, he had to be Sarduakar.
DCMA effectively makes security research illegal by forbidding people from exposing security flaws in software. End result? If DCMA was followed, we'd be up to our eyeballs in shoddy, bug-ridden, insecure software. And since no security flaws or bugs would ever be discovered, there would be no patches/upgrades, save for the bugs found by the software manufacturer. IMHO, this would actually slow down the software industry, since a significant impetus for producing quality software would be missing.
Encryption? Bah. Since DCMA is in effect, simple letter substitution will be sufficient, thank you. No need for strong encryption anymore. DCMA protects us!
The first thing that we usually do whenever a "small but vocal" group demand new software/hardware/whatever is decide whether such a thing is actually needed because it improves performance, makes things easier, or fullfills a need rather than stroke a few egos or mollify someone who read an article in a magazine. Does Exchange fill a need in your organization's infrastructure, or is this just a group of people who got sold on some MS marketing propaganda?
It sounds like you already have a robust and featured mail system in place that does everything that Exchange can, for a fraction of the cost. Unless Exchange does something that your existing system doesn't and your company requires, its going to be hard to justify the cost, time and headache it is going to be to switch to operating systems and MTAs. Standardizing on client email software is a Good Thing, but again you have to look at if the benefits outweigh the costs. Does Outlook provide something that isn't being taken care of now, and if you standardize on Outlook, can you support it?
Slashdot Mirror
I once had an MCSE ask me, in all seriousness, why he couldn't type a fully-qualified hostname to choose a DNS server. It's a paper qualification; it implies no real skill or insight into the system's operation, or any sort of reasoning into consequences of limited design.
/etc/ directory, the file everything.conf, with the permissions -rw-rw-r--. What if you decide that you don't want Joe User to see your firewall configuration? Make everything.conf readable only to sys admins? Then, all of a sudden, all of the daemons have to have admin priviledges just to see their configuration. Urk. Kludge. Messy, dangerous kludge.
.ini files to SYSTEM and Administrator... Of course you wouldn't. You obviously spend a lot more time bawling about imagined wrongs in Windows than you do learning about it. MCSEs learn all about that stuff, though. Fancy that.
This is limited to MCSE's only? No other subset of users can make this kind of error?
Therefore, I consider MS fanatics to be, for the most part, a self-limiting reaction
What is a MS Fanatic? Is that anything like a Linux fanatic? I don't see many people saying "Screw RedHat, screw FreeBSD, MICROSOFT RULES!". On the contrary, I see a LOT of OS bigotry from self-proclaimed *nix professionals, who naysay and poo-poo an operating system just because it comes from a particular vendor. A true professional evaluates the problem, and figures out what OS/software best fits the situation. There has been plenty of times that we've thrown out Solaris/SCO/Linux in favor of Windows, because Windows offered the best solution for what we were doing.
I think the more relevent question is with regards to the operating system's track record. With the exception of the recent blight of Red Hat 7.0, Linux has probably had far less documented bugs, and because of the UNIX user permissions model, the damages are minimum.
Your analysis is flawed. Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money is. Microsoft OS's get so much focus because they're so widely used. The recent slew of RedHat hacks that have emerged is due to the RedHat distro being the most popular. It follows that a popular OS is going to get attention. NT/2k also has a user permission system. I'm sure any professional who has worked with NT before would be aware of this. When the permissions are applied as documented and recommended by Microsoft the damages are as minimal as on a Unix sysytem.
Compare this to Windows. Bugs all over the place, some more serious than those in Linux, some less serious.
That's a highly astute observation there. Tell me, can a bug in Windows be of equal seriousness as a bug in Linux? I see an awful lot of exploits for Linux. Can you back up your claim of "bugs all over the place" for Windows with any kind of numbers, or are you just speaking from the heart? Linux certainly has a pretty good library of bugs and exploits.
Where most machines are running 9x/Me with *no* user/process security whatsoever, malicious code can run rampant
Actually, ALL Win9x/ME machines have no user process security. But those OS's weren't designed to have that. If you want user process security, use NT/Win2k. 9x/ME were designed as a consumer platform, not for business. Microsoft doesn't recommend using Win9x the corporate environment.
NT/2000 is an improvement, but it's not designed into every aspect of the operating system's historical architecture.
Actually, it is. You're arguing from a point of igonrance. Try actually USING the operating system for a while, for something other then launching telnet. All processes in NT/Win2k run under the contect of the user that spawned it.
Windows has been one patch to DOS 1.0 after another, and the final result is such a kludge and so many processes are running with full administrative priviledges that the task of exploiting a bug remains trivial.
This is bullshit again. If you have so many processes launching under Administrator, I would suggest not having your services run under that account, and stop logging in as Administrator on your system. Do you log in as root on your Unix systems regularly? Best practices for both OS's say not to use root/Administrator unless something calls for special permission that superuser account has.
Running Windows 2000 on my desktop is farcical - half my software won't work properly if I don't give my user account admin priviledges.
Bullshit again. Normal client software doesn't require Administrator access to run. Installing software on a Win2k/NT box requires superuser permissions, but HEY! That's a security feature, and Windows doesn't have that, right? Lazy people who don't want to configure they systems properly run their services under a superuser account, and we all know what THAT means. Even in a Linux world. I certainly don't need Administrator permission to launch Office, Explorer, or any other normal user process. Unless your system is SO badly configured, a user started process CANNOT just run as Administrator simply because it wants to, unless it's a service which has been configured to run as Administrator (in which it's your fault for doing so), or you're logged in as Administrator.
It amazes me how many allegedly Windows 2000 compatible programs decide that they're going to attempt to store temporary information in the system registry instead of the roving user registries.
Because software installed on a Windows sytem is system-wide. If you want to prevent someone from launching a particular application, use POLEDIT and edit their profile to stop them, or *GOSH* maybe change the NTFS permissions to prevent someone from accessing the executable? Don't tell me that you don't use chmod in the Unix world?!
The single system registry is dangerous, too. Imagine, in your *NIX
Of course, nobody would expect you to know that you could set permissions on individual Registry keys, and restrict
Contrast this to Linux or any other UNIX variant, the whole model and concept of which was designed with user and process security and isolation from the ground up.
Yeah, fancy that Microsoft wouldn't consider that. I guess the Internet Guest account can launch any damn process it wants, or any user on a Terminal Server can stop any other process, even if it doesn't belong to him. Not. IUSR_ cannot simply just add itself to the Domain Admins group, just because someone is using a directory traversal exploit(which wouldn't be a problem in itself if the admins simply INSTALLED THE DAMN PATCHES) because OH MY GOD! That process cannot be spawned by a non-Administrator account!
As a bonus, the added complexity of administering multiple accounts to the average user is a pain in the butt. They want point-and-drool, everything clean and simple and familiar.
Point-and-drool? Do you really hold your users in such low regard?
Actually, administering a NT/Win2k mixed domain is quite easy, and I use the command line a lot. But you're expecting regular everyday users (who probably just use a PC at home for email and pr0n surfing) to suddenly have knowledge of a 20 year Unix engineer simply because you're in the building. There's no need for GUIs in Linux, no siree. Things line KDE and Gnome are simply figments of my imagination. Windows domains don't require a person to have multiple accounts. Microsoft has stressed from the beginning the "unified login", where one account is sufficient. Sounds like you really need the services of an MCSE.
The beauty of the complexity of Linux/UNIX versus Windows is that it weeds out the chaff who aren't capable of managing a box.
Complexity can come and bite itself in the ass. Is complexity always a good thing? We've chucked out Linux and Unix solutions in favor of Windows simply because it Didn't Work. Linux isn't the Wonder Platform that a lot of people try to make it out to be.
I'm sure the programmers and architects at M$ see the problems and comparisons I'm drawing. To be designing an operating system, you must love computers and a sense of a job well done, so I'm sure it pains them that they have to deal with such kludges day in and day out. I'm sure they'd dump the whole thing and fix it if they could, but the marketing guys won't let them implement it.
I hope you're sending your resume to Microsoft right after reading this. Actually, I don't, since you haven't the first clue about Windows or its security model. Instead of the usual Windows-bashing, why not take a few minutes out of the day and actually LEARN the OS? It sounds like your workstation needs to be reconfigured anyway.
I've administered many Windows domains, both NT and Win2k, that are directly connected to the Internet, and have a large internal userbase. And I've never ONCE had any major security problems. Maybe I'm a "gifted" MCSE, or The One who will bring balance to the Force, but to me, none of your arguments hold water.
No, it doesn't *just work*. Consoles are essentially computers with identical hardware, and the OS burned into ROM. Installing an alternate OS is going to require configuration and tweaking. Software doesn't magically become stable, self-installing and self-configuring just because you're running it on a dedicated games platform. If that was the case, everyone would be running their server on Dreamcasts.
OK, this has been bothering me for some time now... WHY? What's the use of putting Linux on a PS2? Just because? I have a toaster that anyone is welcome to try installing Linux on Just Because. For the same price of a PS2, you can get the parts to make a more robust Linux box (or I'm certain all you DIY Linux people already have the parts sitting around to build at least 2 Linux servers). It's a damn game console. If someone needs an excuse to buy a PS2, it should be because they want to play games, not try to cobble together a Linux box on a platform that's not really expandable or particularly robust for the OS.
About as productive as chastising trolls for reading slashdot articles!
Ever hear of reading comprehension?
"I bring my lower powered notebook"
Please call 1-800-ABCDEFG right now.
Makes me laugh... in a predictable wave of Linux-zealotry, some well meaning people forgot that the person is NOT running Linux. So suggestions like Pango and the like, while informative, aren't very helpful. Remember: There are OTHER operating systems that are alternatives to Windows that aren't Linux.
I think the kid should not only have the suspension lifted, I also think the teacher should pay the kid the reward that he was promised. It was never said how much the "reward" was, just that the teacher wanted 10% (conspiracy to commit a crime, anyone? It would certainly be fair, especially if the kid was facing punishment for breaking the law). The teacher could give him ninety cents, and say the reward was a dollar, less his 10%. And he gets screwed twice by the same teacher. Isn't education wonderful?
You mean Scumbag San Khuri from Benchmark Print Supply? He got slapped silly with a couple of lawsuits. One of them from Europe. Currently, he's under a restraining order from sending spam ever again. Deja article here
Other approaches? Where I come from, we have a saying: Shit or get off the pot. Whining about the evils of MAPS/ORBS/DUL won't get you anywhere. Come up with your own solution, or Just Do Something. Otherwise, it's business as usual, neh?
Sort of like the LAPD, I guess.
Terminal velocity? It would the same if you bolted the mouse to a desk and tossed it out the window. Galileo and his famous experiment, you see... Perhaps you were meaning the amount of force generated on impact? F=mv
No ball. It's pressure operated. But suprisingly, Microsoft makes an EXCELLENT USB optical mouse. Maybe they should ditch their OS divsion and concentrate on hardware and games.
The EULA for WinNT4.0 requires you to scroll down to the bottom before you can hit F8 to agree. Strangely enough, the EULA for Win2k doesn't have this. NT's the only MS product I've seen that has its EULA set up this way.
IIRC (having read Dune only once), but wasn't it revealed towards the end that the Sarduakar and the Fremen were related? In Lynch's movie this wasn't even hinted at... just a mention of Fremen fighting ability and ferocity when Aliyah was brought before the Emperor. The miniseries also glossed over this, with just Paul mentioning that if the "smuggler" was able to get past his bodyguards, he had to be Sarduakar.
DCMA effectively makes security research illegal by forbidding people from exposing security flaws in software. End result? If DCMA was followed, we'd be up to our eyeballs in shoddy, bug-ridden, insecure software. And since no security flaws or bugs would ever be discovered, there would be no patches/upgrades, save for the bugs found by the software manufacturer. IMHO, this would actually slow down the software industry, since a significant impetus for producing quality software would be missing. Encryption? Bah. Since DCMA is in effect, simple letter substitution will be sufficient, thank you. No need for strong encryption anymore. DCMA protects us!
The first thing that we usually do whenever a "small but vocal" group demand new software/hardware/whatever is decide whether such a thing is actually needed because it improves performance, makes things easier, or fullfills a need rather than stroke a few egos or mollify someone who read an article in a magazine. Does Exchange fill a need in your organization's infrastructure, or is this just a group of people who got sold on some MS marketing propaganda? It sounds like you already have a robust and featured mail system in place that does everything that Exchange can, for a fraction of the cost. Unless Exchange does something that your existing system doesn't and your company requires, its going to be hard to justify the cost, time and headache it is going to be to switch to operating systems and MTAs. Standardizing on client email software is a Good Thing, but again you have to look at if the benefits outweigh the costs. Does Outlook provide something that isn't being taken care of now, and if you standardize on Outlook, can you support it?