Does anyone actually use SNMP to manage operatins systems anymore? As far as I can tell, SNMP sucks hard for doing this, it's hard to use, it's hard to manage, it's pretty insecure. And it's not like this is a new thing that they're doing, MOM has been around since 2000, what they've annouced is the *nix agents - which is a good thing in my opinion.
So do you check your logs manually? If you're managing 100's or 1000's of servers, how well does that scale? At that point, you can't check them all manually, so you have an automated system that does it for you, and tells you when it detects a problem. And it's not only logs - it will tell you when that process that was supposed to be running isn't, or when the server has died completely, or when that web application is taking too long to respond. And it does it automatically, so that you don't have to check them yourself. You know, all that stuff that usually you cobble together a bunch of scripts to do for you, you just get done in the agent for you.
No, that's a different component. They announced two components - one is the *nix agents, the other is the connectors to Openview/TEC. In the case of the *nix agents, SCOM talks to them using OpenPegasus.
Actually it's for people who want to be automatically alerted when there are issues with their systems, or who want to record performance & availability information for reporting and analysis. Or people who want an overall view of the state of their systems, so that they can see at a glance what services are working correctly, or what aren't. It's nothing to do with providing point and click management, it's about providing a centralised monitoring and reporting interface.
Not in this case. It's an agent based technology (or at least, it can be, SNMP is also an option - a poor one, but an option). The agent reports information back to the Ops Mgr environment, and since it's agent based you can also get the agent to execute commands on your behalf (natively).
Here for information about what Operations Manager is for those who might like to read before commenting. I know, this is Slashdot and that's frowned upon...
It's an automated monitoring & alerting tool, rather than a GUI tool to perform actions that would traditionally be performed at the command line. So you just let your *nix system run, then when an error occurs (maybe an message gets logged in syslog, maybe a process that should be running isn't), the alerting system can alert you (email, SMS, IM), optionally take corrective action and resolve the issue automatically. You can also collect performance stats etc so you can do capacity planning and analysis. Screen shots here
What you find in Vista (not XP unfortunately) is that a lot of the services that run with LocalSystem now run as "restricted" localsystem. They've profiled each service and figured out exactly what access it needs to run, and then granted that service those rights and no others. So while it looks like LocalSystem/Network Service it actually has reduced rights. Which is a good thing.
So that's twice now you've posted the same inaccurate information. On Vista, if you're a local admin, you have to accept that the change is going to happen (UAC prompt). If you're a standard user, you *cannot* install that application without providing administrative credentials (UAC prompt). Just like on Unix.
Just because MSI runs privileged does not mean that standard users are able to install system processes. You get a prompt when you try to do so - if you are a local admin then the prompt says "are you sure" and if you're a standard user you get asked for admin credentials.
Re:What the hell were they thinking?
on
ISO Releases OOXML FAQ
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There's also evidence that multiple new people signed up *specifically* to vote against OOXML - it cuts both ways.
How was Microsoft supposed to implement this standard in their own products before it was a standard? Once it went into the standards committee a bunch of changes were made - how could those changes have been anticipated.
It's really not hard to find more, one of the side effects of all the negative attention OOXML has had is that ODF is getting a lot of scrutiny and a lot of issues are being found with it as well. For instance, performance wasn't a goal when designing ODF - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but Microsoft have been doing this for a long time and realise the importance of performance.
For one thing, it won't be the only ISO standard for documents: we already have ODF Yeah, except ODF is also incomplete, and is designed from a whole different set of requirements. I see no problem with having two different standards at all, and letting the market decide which standard they want to use. Basically Microsoft are between a rock and a hard place here, if they choose to use the ISO ODF standard, it won't support all the features of the Office application (that would be the market leader). If they choose to extend the ISO ODF standard to do what they need it to do, they get accused of embrace and extend. What you're saying is that you'd like Microsoft to cripple Office in order to meet the ODF document format.
it's not that OOXML is bad, it is that OOXML is broken and MSFT is trying to ram it through anyways
I'm not sure how Microsoft is trying to "ram it through" - Microsoft are following the ISO process for standards that are developed externally (i.e. not developed inside ISO). That process is called fast track, and it's how ISO deals with "existing" standards.
It's quite strange isn't it - the American moral police don't seem to have any problem with showing pretty graphic violence (or even torture) but heaven forbid that some see a breast or some pubes.
VMS does a great job of providing a secure multi-user operating system, while Windows NT does not (as is shown by the numerous exploits).
I think if you look at the numerous exploits (and there have been many), you'll find that they're mostly implementation bugs & poor default options, not architectural flaws. As noted by other posters, the fundamental base of Windows is actually pretty solid.
Systems like VMS and UNIX, on the other hand, were built from the ground-up as multi-user systems, and thus took into consideration the security needs of such usage patterns.
VMS maybe, Unix no. IIRC, the first versions of Unix had no concept of security at all.
I'm running Vista Business on an HP NX6120, 1GB of RAM and Pentium M 1.73 GHz, no problem at all. Aero doesn't work, but apart from that everything is fine.
Didn't read anything about him carrying on a set of liquids to mix together on the plane in that article (or the flight 434 one). What I did read was that he managed to get a fairly conventional explosive through the baggage check and detonate it. The thing that people are saying is impossible (or at least difficult enough to make it not worth it) is the idea of mixing up an explosive on board the plane from two or more innocuous looking liquids.
I don't know of anyone who opposed the war because they thought it was "poorly implemented". I don't know anyone who would have changed their mind and supported the war if Shinseki had gotten his 400,000 troops.
That would be the bad idea part - people like me who thought this war was going to be a clusterfuck from the start (and I assume the parent post as well) wouldn't have supported this war even if GWB had one million troops - because it was still a bad idea.
Let's see - a project which virtually no one uses, which has virtually no market share, and Microsoft saw that as enough of a threat to get it killed off. Somehow I don't think so...I think it more likely that Novell saw that the project had no future and killed it themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone actually use SNMP to manage operatins systems anymore? As far as I can tell, SNMP sucks hard for doing this, it's hard to use, it's hard to manage, it's pretty insecure. And it's not like this is a new thing that they're doing, MOM has been around since 2000, what they've annouced is the *nix agents - which is a good thing in my opinion.
So do you check your logs manually? If you're managing 100's or 1000's of servers, how well does that scale? At that point, you can't check them all manually, so you have an automated system that does it for you, and tells you when it detects a problem. And it's not only logs - it will tell you when that process that was supposed to be running isn't, or when the server has died completely, or when that web application is taking too long to respond. And it does it automatically, so that you don't have to check them yourself. You know, all that stuff that usually you cobble together a bunch of scripts to do for you, you just get done in the agent for you.
Yeah, except SNMP sucks.
No, that's a different component. They announced two components - one is the *nix agents, the other is the connectors to Openview/TEC. In the case of the *nix agents, SCOM talks to them using OpenPegasus.
Actually it's for people who want to be automatically alerted when there are issues with their systems, or who want to record performance & availability information for reporting and analysis. Or people who want an overall view of the state of their systems, so that they can see at a glance what services are working correctly, or what aren't. It's nothing to do with providing point and click management, it's about providing a centralised monitoring and reporting interface.
Not in this case. It's an agent based technology (or at least, it can be, SNMP is also an option - a poor one, but an option). The agent reports information back to the Ops Mgr environment, and since it's agent based you can also get the agent to execute commands on your behalf (natively).
Shameless karma whoring...
Here for information about what Operations Manager is for those who might like to read before commenting. I know, this is Slashdot and that's frowned upon...
It's an automated monitoring & alerting tool, rather than a GUI tool to perform actions that would traditionally be performed at the command line. So you just let your *nix system run, then when an error occurs (maybe an message gets logged in syslog, maybe a process that should be running isn't), the alerting system can alert you (email, SMS, IM), optionally take corrective action and resolve the issue automatically. You can also collect performance stats etc so you can do capacity planning and analysis. Screen shots here
What you find in Vista (not XP unfortunately) is that a lot of the services that run with LocalSystem now run as "restricted" localsystem. They've profiled each service and figured out exactly what access it needs to run, and then granted that service those rights and no others. So while it looks like LocalSystem/Network Service it actually has reduced rights. Which is a good thing.
So that's twice now you've posted the same inaccurate information. On Vista, if you're a local admin, you have to accept that the change is going to happen (UAC prompt). If you're a standard user, you *cannot* install that application without providing administrative credentials (UAC prompt). Just like on Unix.
Just because MSI runs privileged does not mean that standard users are able to install system processes. You get a prompt when you try to do so - if you are a local admin then the prompt says "are you sure" and if you're a standard user you get asked for admin credentials.
There's also evidence that multiple new people signed up *specifically* to vote against OOXML - it cuts both ways.
How was Microsoft supposed to implement this standard in their own products before it was a standard? Once it went into the standards committee a bunch of changes were made - how could those changes have been anticipated.
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2006/05/26/607630.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2006/06/01/612952.aspx
It's really not hard to find more, one of the side effects of all the negative attention OOXML has had is that ODF is getting a lot of scrutiny and a lot of issues are being found with it as well. For instance, performance wasn't a goal when designing ODF - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but Microsoft have been doing this for a long time and realise the importance of performance.
For one thing, it won't be the only ISO standard for documents: we already have ODF
Yeah, except ODF is also incomplete, and is designed from a whole different set of requirements. I see no problem with having two different standards at all, and letting the market decide which standard they want to use. Basically Microsoft are between a rock and a hard place here, if they choose to use the ISO ODF standard, it won't support all the features of the Office application (that would be the market leader). If they choose to extend the ISO ODF standard to do what they need it to do, they get accused of embrace and extend. What you're saying is that you'd like Microsoft to cripple Office in order to meet the ODF document format.
That's because fast track is the process that existing standards go through. The slow track is for standards that ISO generates internally...
I'm not sure how Microsoft is trying to "ram it through" - Microsoft are following the ISO process for standards that are developed externally (i.e. not developed inside ISO). That process is called fast track, and it's how ISO deals with "existing" standards.
Heard of Kerberos? Rather sensitive to time I believe...
It's quite strange isn't it - the American moral police don't seem to have any problem with showing pretty graphic violence (or even torture) but heaven forbid that some see a breast or some pubes.
Yes, autodesk is that stupid. This has been brought to you by simple answers to simple questions.
I think if you look at the numerous exploits (and there have been many), you'll find that they're mostly implementation bugs & poor default options, not architectural flaws. As noted by other posters, the fundamental base of Windows is actually pretty solid.
Systems like VMS and UNIX, on the other hand, were built from the ground-up as multi-user systems, and thus took into consideration the security needs of such usage patterns.
VMS maybe, Unix no. IIRC, the first versions of Unix had no concept of security at all.
I'm running Vista Business on an HP NX6120, 1GB of RAM and Pentium M 1.73 GHz, no problem at all. Aero doesn't work, but apart from that everything is fine.
Didn't read anything about him carrying on a set of liquids to mix together on the plane in that article (or the flight 434 one). What I did read was that he managed to get a fairly conventional explosive through the baggage check and detonate it.
The thing that people are saying is impossible (or at least difficult enough to make it not worth it) is the idea of mixing up an explosive on board the plane from two or more innocuous looking liquids.
I don't know of anyone who opposed the war because they thought it was "poorly implemented". I don't know anyone who would have changed their mind and supported the war if Shinseki had gotten his 400,000 troops.
That would be the bad idea part - people like me who thought this war was going to be a clusterfuck from the start (and I assume the parent post as well) wouldn't have supported this war even if GWB had one million troops - because it was still a bad idea.
Let's see - a project which virtually no one uses, which has virtually no market share, and Microsoft saw that as enough of a threat to get it killed off. Somehow I don't think so...I think it more likely that Novell saw that the project had no future and killed it themselves.