That's just one more reason for consumers NOT to even think about going to BLU-RAY or HDDVD in their current incarnations.
Just tell the vendors that enough is enough - cut the bullshit, remove the encryption (or at least make it cut-off by a legal copyright date), and give us our pure, unfettered digital content.
I don't think the poster was referring to the simple/slow flash technology of our usb fobs.
There's a whole other side to flash technology where large scale, ultra high-speed drives are being made of some very cool flash technology.
Enhancing that so that storage capacities approximate today's largest hard drives, with the speeds that these bad ass flash components can provide, would be great.
They've sued their customer base. They've spent millions on ineffective marketing campaigns. They've pushed labels to cookie-cutter their music and bands. Now they wonder how they're going to raise profits?
If they move forward with restricting our right to backup a flimsy media so that we can listen to the music that we've purchased the right to listen to, then we the community need to fire back.
ie - counter-sue the RIAA/MPAA on the grounds that we pay money for a product that is INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE.
They produce a products that are brittle, easy to break. They produce products which require a scratch free surface to play properly, yet the products are made of a material that scratches almost by air flowing over it. They produce products which illegally extend copyright, by making the encryption never ending.
I'd say there's enough there to start a massive world-wide class-action lawsuit and force them to refine their product, at no additional cost to us, so that they are scratch resistant, and have an encryption method that turns itself off after the legal copyright limit.
If they cannot do that, then they'll have to retract their position, and allow us to make backups of their defective products.
ie - through the poorly thought out and worded DMCA laws, that, through encryption technologies, will virtually extend copyrights to infinity..
Oh - that work is encrypted - you cannot decrypt it without authorization, meaning you can NEVER *legally* view / reproduce it without the encryption.
Encryption technologies for copyrighted works should have embedded date calculations that disable the encryption once the copyright period has expired, otherwise, the product illegaly extends copyright.
Now, what happens when some foreign country lobs a small nuke into orbit, pushing the counterweight back towards earth, and all that carbon nanotube/nanofiber/monofilament comes crashing down to earth?
If I recall correctly, there was a book published, where an event like this occured (fiction of course), yet the outcome was pools of bucky ball forming in impact zones, plus all the damage of that much material impacting the earth (the carbon material being heat resistant enough to not burn up during re-entry).
So, when will the over-achieving programmer come up with a method, on a per process basis, that will make the kernel calls report a different CPU based on which process is asking?
Skype asks "What kind of CPU are you" - kernel reports Intel. mplayer asks "What kind of CPU are you" - kernel reports AMD.
Aye, I should have mentioned the FPU limit myself. However, since most of the apps we run are FPU light apps, we don't notice the limit.
I can hardly wait to see the reported improvements in the Niagara 2. 1 FPU per core, plus the SSL acceleration that's already in each core. Add in the increase from 4 execution threads to I believe 16 execution threads per core. I believe it will be in 2, but it might be in 3 where they'll add in the scout chip to pre-load contents into the cache just before execution time so each thread has it's cache loaded with most if not all the stuff it needs.
I am not a Sun employee, I am just a Sun customer, who for the first time in years, is truly enthused about the release of an OS level and processor that seems to make a lot of sense.
LOL - It appears that someone forgot their medication this morning.
Those numbers I quoted are straight from the environmental spec sheets. The same ones that every company develops to be used by datacenter planners to determine how much cooling capacity, as well as power requirements for everything running in the datacenter.
As for Sun systems being slow, that was mostly a by-product of their design. In the past, Sun systems were designed for heavy workloads - not speedy, but massive workloads, that wouldn't bring the box to it's knees.
Now, Sun has taken the time to re-write their OS, many components from the ground up (like their TCP stack) as well as their primary filesystem - the ZFS, to be released with the 6/06 Solaris 10 distribution.
These boxes are not slow by any means. Add to that, the processing capacity they have designed into the OS and processors, and you'll find that when you combine power, form factor (2RUs) and capacity, you won't find much that matches them.
I was primarily trying to point out, however - that Sun has 8 core here - NOW. While Intel and AMD are *talking* about 4 core next year.
I personally use AMD at home, but at work, I need something that gives just a bit more.
Up to 8 cores, 3MB L2 Cache (total shared), 4 execution threads per core, so effectively 32 execution threads per CPU.
A nicely loaded Sun T2000 system, with 8 cores, 32Gig RAM, Dual 2GB FCA and 8 Gigabit Ethernet interfaces comes in with a street price of approximately 30K. Add in Solaris 10 with it's container technology, the fact that it only uses 325Watts of power, and is light on BTUs - we're talking serious datacenter contender for web services, application servers, database servers, etc...
I'm currently looking at consolidating approximately 20 aging systems using over 10KW of power and close to 20K BTUs/hr thermal output. I am planning on replacing these 20 systems with 4 T2000 servers totaling 1500KW and approximately 5K BTUs/hr thermal output. Not only will I be saving on maintenance for the hardware, but also on software licensing as common applications like Oracle and BEA are licensing their products at 1/4 cpu per core on these processors. I will also be saving on power and cooling requirements for the datacenter. Not to mention datacenter floor space - I will be able to empty 2 full racks with this consolidation project. I'm hoping to expand it and end up with 1 rack of T2000's replacing close to the entire datacenter's UNIX population.
Why should I have to do something else, that takes more time away from my assigned work, to record time spent, helping someone else.
My thought, is to place a keyboard / monitor at my cubical entrance.
Anyone that want's something has to sign in, type their question / problem. Then we discuss it, figure out how to fix it, then they sign out, and mark whether the proble is solved, or work in progress.
That way, I don't have to *do more work*, and can get back to my real work sooner.
Now of course, what really should happen, is that the users should call the help desk, have a ticket opened, and wait for the help from the oncall.
In my company, we have an assigned On-Call person, that rotates each week.
Unfortunately, for me, it seems that each person who I've helped in the past, knows that I can help them now. Regardless of how many times I say, "So and so is on-call", I get the response, "I know this will only take you a second." and if I say "Take it to the on-call" again, they go right up the food chain, claiming how "uncooperative" I am.
Anyway, I digress.
How many sys admins, sys analysts, sys engineers (whatever title your company decides to throw at you this week), get to the point, that they just want to scream, "When do I get to work on my assigned work, instead of doing your work for you?".
People will walk up all the time and lay the famous "Quick question" line, at which point I have to suppress the desire to pick up that spare Netra lying under my desk and beat them over the head with it. Sometimes, I surpise myself, and leave it there. Most of the time, I end up with it almost over the top of the desk, before they back off and leave. But seriously, I usually do end up answering their questions, and then try to get back into what I'm doing before the next interruption hits.
The problem with this methodology, is that when the end of the week hits, and your boss asks you for a status update on the one project you were assigned to, and you give them this pole-axed look, claiming to have been inundated with walk-up traffic, your boss just says, "But I thought you weren't on call this week". To which, I really don't have a good reply - other than, "It was either help them, or have them go crying to you claiming I wasn't being helpfull".
We have a help desk center, where everyone with an issue is supposed to call. For some reason, the S&D (no, this doesn't mean software and development, it's supposed to mean Support and Development) group seems to think they are above this work rule. No matter how many times we casually remind them, no matter how many carefully worded e-mails are sent out reminding them of this rule, it never stops the walk up traffic. It also doesn't seem to matter who's on call as long as the person asking the question knows that you can provide them with the answer, regardless of how many times you've given them the same answer. It's easier to ask again, than to strain your brain and remember it on your own.
For those co-workers who actually do remember to follow the rules most of the time, and do remember the answers given for longer than a day or two, I am very courteous and helpfull. For the rest of the SOBs, I'm not as forgiving, and I usually end up reminding them, quite vocally, that I've answered their question (the exact same one) multiple times in the past, and why can't they get it through their duranium alloy skulls?
Oh well - not sure where I'm going with this anymore, maybe I just felt the need to vent.
If anyone has found a chuckle here, then great. If I've offended anyone, then f-off. =D
Higher throughput than standard SCSI, easier to manage and daisy chain and somewhere I'd read that you could attach SATA drives to SAS controllers - although that's never been confirmed.
Training and on-going education are considered part and parcel as part of the job, and where I work, part of the requirements for continued employment. They are provided for, and if job related, paid for by the company.
The next time something happens, let it sit, and say, gee, wish I'd gotten that training. Or better yet fix it, but take a long time doing it. Then, say it would have taken a lot less time, had I received the training I needed. Find local, or at least close, classes, possibly boot-camp style - where they go 12 hours a day for a week, instead of 2 weeks.
Tell them this is where you are going, and submit the requisition for travel and education budget.
Inform them that you cannot do your job without the proper tools and training.
I spent the first 14 years of my career teaching myself as I went. I ended up making a lot of mistakes that could have been avoided with training. When I left that company behind, I made up my mind that I would request training for any new services or systems that I would be responsible for. My new (well, 6 years now) position has provided the training that I have requested and we have both reaped the benefits of that training.
I recently had found a friend from high school, and sent them an e-mail.
The reply from their e-mail system had a long string of text - not html, that I had to place in the subject line, then reply again.
However, I had to read the instructions to get the appropriate characters out of the mess - not an image in this instance, but following instructions - like grab from the 12th character to the 3rd from the last and cut this, paste into the subject and reply.
I'm sure a natural language parser could eventually figure this out, however, it was a nice approach.
Subscribe to an e-mail service provider that requires one of two confirmation methods, before delivering e-mails to it's subscribers.
Method #1 - A return e-mail is sent, requiring a person to reply with the word seen in the *picture*, before being authorized to mail the user. Method #2 - The subscriber adds the e-mail address to it's authorized senders list.
Overriding all of this - the return address domain used in the e-mail must match up with the reverse name lookup of the IP address of the originating sender.
I know I would certainly use something like that if it was available to me. If you're not on the list, the e-mail is dropped. No response, aside from the authentication request. I somehow doubt that the spammers are going to hire people to click the response to get authentication to send e-mails - and even if they do, the user can blacklist them permanently.
Let's see. In order to get the GUI to perform at a reasonable speed, they had to integrate it into the kernel.
In order to get the Web Services (IIS) to perform at a reasonable speed, they had to integrate it into the kernel.
It appears that in order to get certain types of applications to run with any kind of acceptible response times, that it has to be dropped into the kernel.
That would appear to be one area that shows jury-rigging (or cobbling together) at least.
Trouble is, it doesn't show any relevant (or disputed) facts.
Odd - it seems to point out the issues with applications having to be placed into the kernel to get decent response times out of them.
Funny, millions of people managed to use them in "production".
- I'll agree to that statement - with one exception - Millions of people managed to use them in production for one application per server. ie - if you wanted a PDC, a file server, a print server, an Exchange server - you needed to build 4 seperate windows servers. That was per Microsoft's recommendations btw. Their OS couldn't run responsively (ie switching execution threads) with multiple heavy use applications running on it.
Perhaps you have me confused with the parent to this sub-thread.
I was just providing reading material that shows a few minor facts.
NT is poorly designed. In fact it wasn't designed (from the ground up) at all. It borrowed(depending on your use of the term borrowed) heavily from VMS, and then was jury-rigged to float a GUI on top of it.
From MS's own marketing group. NT equals New Technology. What was Windows NT except for Windows New Technology?
With the problems the OS had from the initial release, as well as all subsequent Windows OS releases, you can tell that NONE of the Windows OS releases were ready for production use. They may have been written, and then later used for production, but none of them were actually ready for production when released. Marketers, and Bill Gates apparently shoved them all out the doors before they were ready.
Now, whether any of it or not is factual, I cannot determine with any certainty, but there are certainly some clues to be found, and some items that make you go Hmmmm.
Windows XP is by far, less secure than say Windows 1.x through Windows 3.11. It started to become less secure with the introduction of WFW (that's Windows for Workgroups) 3.11, and has gone steadily down-hill from there.
Until networking was introduced into the equation, it was pretty damned hard to hack a box, unless you had physical access to it.
Slashdot Mirror
This was a knee-jerk response -however, my attempt at notating that within the response was filtered - guess that's why they have a preview button =D
That's just one more reason for consumers NOT to even think about going to BLU-RAY or HDDVD in their current incarnations.
Just tell the vendors that enough is enough - cut the bullshit, remove the encryption (or at least make it cut-off by a legal copyright date), and give us our pure, unfettered digital content.
I don't think the poster was referring to the simple/slow flash technology of our usb fobs.
There's a whole other side to flash technology where large scale, ultra high-speed drives are being made of some very cool flash technology.
Enhancing that so that storage capacities approximate today's largest hard drives, with the speeds that these bad ass flash components can provide, would be great.
Okay, maybe I should have worded it as "A world-wide series of law-suits, suiting local legal codes and judiciary systems"...
Does that make you happier?
And have nowhere to turn.
They've sued their customer base.
They've spent millions on ineffective marketing campaigns.
They've pushed labels to cookie-cutter their music and bands.
Now they wonder how they're going to raise profits?
If they move forward with restricting our right to backup a flimsy media so that we can listen to the music that we've purchased the right to listen to, then we the community need to fire back.
ie - counter-sue the RIAA/MPAA on the grounds that we pay money for a product that is INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE.
They produce a products that are brittle, easy to break. They produce products which require a scratch free surface to play properly, yet the products are made of a material that scratches almost by air flowing over it. They produce products which illegally extend copyright, by making the encryption never ending.
I'd say there's enough there to start a massive world-wide class-action lawsuit and force them to refine their product, at no additional cost to us, so that they are scratch resistant, and have an encryption method that turns itself off after the legal copyright limit.
If they cannot do that, then they'll have to retract their position, and allow us to make backups of their defective products.
ie - through the poorly thought out and worded DMCA laws, that, through encryption technologies, will virtually extend copyrights to infinity..
Oh - that work is encrypted - you cannot decrypt it without authorization, meaning you can NEVER *legally* view / reproduce it without the encryption.
Encryption technologies for copyrighted works should have embedded date calculations that disable the encryption once the copyright period has expired, otherwise, the product illegaly extends copyright.
Now, what happens when some foreign country lobs a small nuke into orbit, pushing the counterweight back towards earth, and all that carbon nanotube/nanofiber/monofilament comes crashing down to earth?
If I recall correctly, there was a book published, where an event like this occured (fiction of course), yet the outcome was pools of bucky ball forming in impact zones, plus all the damage of that much material impacting the earth (the carbon material being heat resistant enough to not burn up during re-entry).
Just a thought...
So, when will the over-achieving programmer come up with a method, on a per process basis, that will make the kernel calls report a different CPU based on which process is asking?
Skype asks "What kind of CPU are you" - kernel reports Intel.
mplayer asks "What kind of CPU are you" - kernel reports AMD.
Especially when the AMD processors can out-run, out-perform, out-class the Intel Chips every day of the week.
LOL - I knew that didn't look right.
I was trying for either 1500W or 1.5KW - guess who fumbled the keys? =D
Aye, I should have mentioned the FPU limit myself. However, since most of the apps we run are FPU light apps, we don't notice the limit.
I can hardly wait to see the reported improvements in the Niagara 2. 1 FPU per core, plus the SSL acceleration that's already in each core. Add in the increase from 4 execution threads to I believe 16 execution threads per core. I believe it will be in 2, but it might be in 3 where they'll add in the scout chip to pre-load contents into the cache just before execution time so each thread has it's cache loaded with most if not all the stuff it needs.
I am not a Sun employee, I am just a Sun customer, who for the first time in years, is truly enthused about the release of an OS level and processor that seems to make a lot of sense.
LOL - It appears that someone forgot their medication this morning.
Those numbers I quoted are straight from the environmental spec sheets. The same ones that every company develops to be used by datacenter planners to determine how much cooling capacity, as well as power requirements for everything running in the datacenter.
As for Sun systems being slow, that was mostly a by-product of their design. In the past, Sun systems were designed for heavy workloads - not speedy, but massive workloads, that wouldn't bring the box to it's knees.
Now, Sun has taken the time to re-write their OS, many components from the ground up (like their TCP stack) as well as their primary filesystem - the ZFS, to be released with the 6/06 Solaris 10 distribution.
These boxes are not slow by any means. Add to that, the processing capacity they have designed into the OS and processors, and you'll find that when you combine power, form factor (2RUs) and capacity, you won't find much that matches them.
I was primarily trying to point out, however - that Sun has 8 core here - NOW. While Intel and AMD are *talking* about 4 core next year.
I personally use AMD at home, but at work, I need something that gives just a bit more.
Up to 8 cores, 3MB L2 Cache (total shared), 4 execution threads per core, so effectively 32 execution threads per CPU.
A nicely loaded Sun T2000 system, with 8 cores, 32Gig RAM, Dual 2GB FCA and 8 Gigabit Ethernet interfaces comes in with a street price of approximately 30K. Add in Solaris 10 with it's container technology, the fact that it only uses 325Watts of power, and is light on BTUs - we're talking serious datacenter contender for web services, application servers, database servers, etc...
I'm currently looking at consolidating approximately 20 aging systems using over 10KW of power and close to 20K BTUs/hr thermal output. I am planning on replacing these 20 systems with 4 T2000 servers totaling 1500KW and approximately 5K BTUs/hr thermal output. Not only will I be saving on maintenance for the hardware, but also on software licensing as common applications like Oracle and BEA are licensing their products at 1/4 cpu per core on these processors. I will also be saving on power and cooling requirements for the datacenter. Not to mention datacenter floor space - I will be able to empty 2 full racks with this consolidation project. I'm hoping to expand it and end up with 1 rack of T2000's replacing close to the entire datacenter's UNIX population.
See, that's another part of the problem.
Why should I have to do something else, that takes more time away from my assigned work, to record time spent, helping someone else.
My thought, is to place a keyboard / monitor at my cubical entrance.
Anyone that want's something has to sign in, type their question / problem. Then we discuss it, figure out how to fix it, then they sign out, and mark whether the proble is solved, or work in progress.
That way, I don't have to *do more work*, and can get back to my real work sooner.
Now of course, what really should happen, is that the users should call the help desk, have a ticket opened, and wait for the help from the oncall.
In my company, we have an assigned On-Call person, that rotates each week.
Unfortunately, for me, it seems that each person who I've helped in the past, knows that I can help them now. Regardless of how many times I say, "So and so is on-call", I get the response, "I know this will only take you a second." and if I say "Take it to the on-call" again, they go right up the food chain, claiming how "uncooperative" I am.
Anyway, I digress.
How many sys admins, sys analysts, sys engineers (whatever title your company decides to throw at you this week), get to the point, that they just want to scream, "When do I get to work on my assigned work, instead of doing your work for you?".
People will walk up all the time and lay the famous "Quick question" line, at which point I have to suppress the desire to pick up that spare Netra lying under my desk and beat them over the head with it. Sometimes, I surpise myself, and leave it there. Most of the time, I end up with it almost over the top of the desk, before they back off and leave. But seriously, I usually do end up answering their questions, and then try to get back into what I'm doing before the next interruption hits.
The problem with this methodology, is that when the end of the week hits, and your boss asks you for a status update on the one project you were assigned to, and you give them this pole-axed look, claiming to have been inundated with walk-up traffic, your boss just says, "But I thought you weren't on call this week". To which, I really don't have a good reply - other than, "It was either help them, or have them go crying to you claiming I wasn't being helpfull".
We have a help desk center, where everyone with an issue is supposed to call. For some reason, the S&D (no, this doesn't mean software and development, it's supposed to mean Support and Development) group seems to think they are above this work rule. No matter how many times we casually remind them, no matter how many carefully worded e-mails are sent out reminding them of this rule, it never stops the walk up traffic. It also doesn't seem to matter who's on call as long as the person asking the question knows that you can provide them with the answer, regardless of how many times you've given them the same answer. It's easier to ask again, than to strain your brain and remember it on your own.
For those co-workers who actually do remember to follow the rules most of the time, and do remember the answers given for longer than a day or two, I am very courteous and helpfull. For the rest of the SOBs, I'm not as forgiving, and I usually end up reminding them, quite vocally, that I've answered their question (the exact same one) multiple times in the past, and why can't they get it through their duranium alloy skulls?
Oh well - not sure where I'm going with this anymore, maybe I just felt the need to vent.
If anyone has found a chuckle here, then great. If I've offended anyone, then f-off. =D
Or Serial Attached SCSI.
Higher throughput than standard SCSI, easier to manage and daisy chain and somewhere I'd read that you could attach SATA drives to SAS controllers - although that's never been confirmed.
Training and on-going education are considered part and parcel as part of the job, and where I work, part of the requirements for continued employment. They are provided for, and if job related, paid for by the company.
The next time something happens, let it sit, and say, gee, wish I'd gotten that training. Or better yet fix it, but take a long time doing it. Then, say it would have taken a lot less time, had I received the training I needed. Find local, or at least close, classes, possibly boot-camp style - where they go 12 hours a day for a week, instead of 2 weeks.
Tell them this is where you are going, and submit the requisition for travel and education budget.
Inform them that you cannot do your job without the proper tools and training.
I spent the first 14 years of my career teaching myself as I went. I ended up making a lot of mistakes that could have been avoided with training. When I left that company behind, I made up my mind that I would request training for any new services or systems that I would be responsible for. My new (well, 6 years now) position has provided the training that I have requested and we have both reaped the benefits of that training.
UV antibacterial/anti-fungal keyboard lamp anyone?
I have actually seen #1 in use, without html.
I recently had found a friend from high school, and sent them an e-mail.
The reply from their e-mail system had a long string of text - not html, that I had to place in the subject line, then reply again.
However, I had to read the instructions to get the appropriate characters out of the mess - not an image in this instance, but following instructions - like grab from the 12th character to the 3rd from the last and cut this, paste into the subject and reply.
I'm sure a natural language parser could eventually figure this out, however, it was a nice approach.
Subscribe to an e-mail service provider that requires one of two confirmation methods, before delivering e-mails to it's subscribers.
Method #1 - A return e-mail is sent, requiring a person to reply with the word seen in the *picture*, before being authorized to mail the user.
Method #2 - The subscriber adds the e-mail address to it's authorized senders list.
Overriding all of this - the return address domain used in the e-mail must match up with the reverse name lookup of the IP address of the originating sender.
I know I would certainly use something like that if it was available to me.
If you're not on the list, the e-mail is dropped. No response, aside from the authentication request.
I somehow doubt that the spammers are going to hire people to click the response to get authentication to send e-mails - and even if they do, the user can blacklist them permanently.
It's also a pain in the ass to activate.
But yes, it can't be hacked (without physical access) until it's networked.
Very astute grasp of the obvious there Mr. Checkov
Why? - What "jury rigging" are you talking about?
Let's see. In order to get the GUI to perform at a reasonable speed, they had to integrate it into the kernel.
In order to get the Web Services (IIS) to perform at a reasonable speed, they had to integrate it into the kernel.
It appears that in order to get certain types of applications to run with any kind of acceptible response times, that it has to be dropped into the kernel.
That would appear to be one area that shows jury-rigging (or cobbling together) at least.
Trouble is, it doesn't show any relevant (or disputed) facts.
Odd - it seems to point out the issues with applications having to be placed into the kernel to get decent response times out of them.
Funny, millions of people managed to use them in "production".
- I'll agree to that statement - with one exception - Millions of people managed to use them in production for one application per server. ie - if you wanted a PDC, a file server, a print server, an Exchange server - you needed to build 4 seperate windows servers. That was per Microsoft's recommendations btw. Their OS couldn't run responsively (ie switching execution threads) with multiple heavy use applications running on it.
Hmm - odd, I don't recall making any claims.
Perhaps you have me confused with the parent to this sub-thread.
I was just providing reading material that shows a few minor facts.
NT is poorly designed. In fact it wasn't designed (from the ground up) at all. It borrowed(depending on your use of the term borrowed) heavily from VMS, and then was jury-rigged to float a GUI on top of it.
From MS's own marketing group. NT equals New Technology. What was Windows NT except for Windows New Technology?
With the problems the OS had from the initial release, as well as all subsequent Windows OS releases, you can tell that NONE of the Windows OS releases were ready for production use. They may have been written, and then later used for production, but none of them were actually ready for production when released. Marketers, and Bill Gates apparently shoved them all out the doors before they were ready.
Hmmm - tiniest bit of evidence....
t icleID=4494
i s_VMS_re-implemented.html
VMS
V+1=W
M+1=N
S+1=T
VMS +1 = WNT
Granted it's not really evidence of any sort, however, if you read around the internet, there are actually bits and pieces of evidence to be found.
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Ar
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/Windows-NT_
Now, whether any of it or not is factual, I cannot determine with any certainty, but there are certainly some clues to be found, and some items that make you go Hmmmm.
Why do we have to admit to that?
That's actually a false statement.
Windows XP is by far, less secure than say Windows 1.x through Windows 3.11. It started to become less secure with the introduction of WFW (that's Windows for Workgroups) 3.11, and has gone steadily down-hill from there.
Until networking was introduced into the equation, it was pretty damned hard to hack a box, unless you had physical access to it.