It's not exactly new, it's been in there since at least XP, can't quite remember if it was in 2000. There's a few of the Win+ shortcut keys which are useful - Win+E = Explorer, Win+L = Lock workstation, Win+F = Search, Win+D = Show Desktop.
Isn't this what enables FOSS? Most of the FOSS don't have official leadership (other than the creator of course:-) ) until it matures and shines. The linux kernel is a wonderful example.
I've always thought that the Linux kernel was a great example of a cathedral. Access to get anything into the kernel is strongly controlled by a set of "bishops" if you will - just that the bishops are somewhat more approachable that a commercial vendor (but only somewhat). ESR's attempts to generalise a set of rules about OSS software development based on a couple of small projects always seemed a bit tenuous to me...
Because that worked so well when the Clinton Administration did it. Again, in Iraq, Bush was urged to let sanctions work. Here he did exactly that, and guess what, he's attacked for it.
Actually it did work really well when the Clinton administration did it. North Korea didn't resume their nuclear program until 2002 - when GWB was well in the white housse. Read more here.
So why don't they just get a warrant under the FISA provision? It's exactly what FISA is supposed to be for, why don't they just use it? Cause they don't want to?
I think you're confused. Bitlocker isn't a replacement for the file system, it's a hard disk encryption tool. The file system remains intact, so your claim that users couldn't find stuff anymore seems a little odd to say the least.
Also, Bitlocker is only available on Vista, so are you saying you're running your production users on the Vista beta?
The final straw came when one employee lost several hours work when Bitlcoker suddenly had an error reading from our intranet file server and corrupted his project.
Bitlocker doesn't affect files read from network locations, it's merely a hard disk encryption technology. I think you're confused about what Bitlocker is.
Mail servers handle mail, period. Exchange may handle/maul mail (relaying for the world + his dog) but it's addition of a calendering feature does not mean that proper mailserver should have one
Depends on whether you class Exchange as a "mail server", or whether it's a "workflow server". Whether or not you agree with it, having the calendar and mail client integrated brings a lot of benefit, not least of which is the fact that the transport for sending calendar invites (mail) and the method for processing those invites are integrated. Times have changed a bit since all mail servers did was handle mail (at least in the corporate world).
You've just confused the issue. You've gone from the measure of speed (km/h) to calculating total distance (km). To calculate distance given speed and time, yes you multiply the two, because the time in the denominator & numerator cancel. However, the discussion was about the km/h way of notating speed, which you claimed was confusing because it indicates division - which it does. Speed is kilometers divided by hours. It's that simple.
Seriously dude, the measure of speed is distance per time. That is, the distance divided by the time - that gives you the measure of speed. In the post I responded to you used the example of metres/second (or as you put it, metres:second). You do realise that metres/second indicates the number of metres divided by the number of seconds right?
I wish I had mod points, I'd mod you up in a second. You've neatly summarised my views on DRM - it could be a good thing for keeping corporate secrets secret, which at the moment is pretty hard - that whole analog hole thing... IMO DRM has it's uses inside corporates, but becomes a real pain when it comes to consumer level devices. I'd be a very happy man if DRM didn't come near any of my home devices (PC, DVD, media player etc).
So is your claim that Linus (or some other person) wouldn't have written the tools if the GNU tools weren't available? The GNU tools are particularly unremarkable in that they are just free implementations of tools that already existed. If RMS/the GNU project hadn't made them available under the GPL, someone else would have written them. I guess that is the particular cleverness of both RMS & Linus - RMS made them available under a license that enourages sharing, Linus was smart enough not to reinvent the wheel.
A fix that by all accounts broke some printer drivers - so yeah, the independent programmers built a fix but it was of lower quality. I don't know about you, but where I am printing is kind of important...
Heard of an unhandled exception? i.e. a divide by 0 error should get trapped by the application. If the application doesn't handle it, the OS has to. I believe the default behaviour of NT in this situation is to blue screen. If the application had proper error handling (or input validation) it would have been fine...
Re:"security applications and systems" only??
on
Security and Usability
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Thus they tend to come up with all manner of silly policies that marginally improve security while seriously degrading usuability. As long as they don't cause work to completely halt, they usually get away with such draconian policies.
They either get away with them, or the users find subtle ways to work around them, thus negating the policy completely. Either that or the users ignore the policy completely. The best security policies are the ones you can explain to the people who are affected by it and have them understand both the risk, and why you've implemented the policy. If you can't explain how the policy addresses a security risk, it's probably not a good policy...
First off coding is something anybody can learn and is improved by simple practice. Now there is no "anybody else" if people would just take the effort to learn a little.
It also takes time to become skilled, especially enough to pick up another project, read the code and then code a new feature for it. Frankly that's actually a reasonably significant time investment that most people simply won't have time to make. I know I'd rather spend my time making music than learning to code so I can implement a feature...
But I fear for society in a world where people refuse to learn because they don't want to, instead of can't.
How about a society where people prioritise their time differently according to what interests them, or to what they have time for?
The author talks a bit about why Linux is a superior platform for this kind of work: 'FOSS software is, almost by definition, a work in process. If Ardour doesn't have a feature I need, I can code it myself
It's only superior if you have the ability to code the feature you need. There's a huge assumption there that someone who is skilled at using a DAW is even inclined to code new features for an application. Personally speaking, I lack the skills to approach that, so a superior platform is one that lets me do what I want without having to code the feature. That's not to discount the value of being able to do that, but really, most modern DAW's are extensible in some way or another (be it via VST, or some API). Having said that, Audacity rocks!
IIRC, the first versions of UNIX were not designed to operate on networks, and this functionality was in fact bolted on later. The advantage UNIX has over Windows is that it bolted that stuff on 10 years earlier so has gone through a lot of the pain already.
There is a great initial cost of switching. This cost is pretty much the only thing that keeps companies away
Provided the initial cost of switching then translates into savings in the future I'm sure many companies will consider it. However, it's relatively hard to demonstrate that there will be savings, at the moment it seems that the most likely result will be that it's cost neutral. Therefore a lot of companies will just stick with Windows.
The failure of the Linux developers to provide a stable API to develop drivers against is hardly conducive to people developing good drivers. Having to recompile and redistribute drivers every time the kernel developers decide to break something isn't really that clever...
you're looking at a big remote desktop, for starters
Well in a windows based operating system that's rather the point isn't it? It wouldn't be very much good if you didn't see a big remote desktop. And as far as the $$$ go, for remote admin TS has always been free. If you use it to provide user services, then it costs.
Dude, terminal services has been available for remote admin of Windows servers for five years now. If they're still running up and down stairs (or indeed using VNC) they're doing something badly wrong. Terminal Services is much lighter on bandwidth than VNC, and in dedicated LAN/WAN environments is great. Not so great over dial-up, but still usable in an emergency.
1. Mail History - sure it isn't hard to setup a new mail client, but can you maintain all their previously sent mail? 2. Application level settings - say you've got a bunch of Word templates that you want converted to OpenOffice format. What then?
That's two off the top of my head, I haven't even started thinking hard about this yet. Migration is important...
I think one of the most telling comments in there is this one: The first issue, migration, is pretty serious. For "Regular People" to adopt Linux (which usually means leaving Windows) Linux is going to need a serious migration plan. It will need to install on machines next to Window, leaving that completely intact and easy to return to, and carry over all or nearly all of the user's data and settings.
Plenty of people don't realise that part of Microsoft's strength is their migration ability (and I'm not really talking on the desktop here). You want to migrate from Groupwise to Exchange - there's a free tool for that - or Lotus Notes to Exchange, same again. What you don't see from the majority of their competitors are tools (or even best practice guidance) that go the other way. Microsoft make it very easy to migrate to their products (and the fact that they make it hard to migrate away helps them a bit as well:). If companies are going to compete with Microsoft, we have to see a migration path from one to the other, and think about interoperability. Lots of people complain that Microsoft doesn't interoperate with others well, and theres certainly truth to that, but interop works both ways.
I can honestly tell you that for any number of large jobs in my workplace, two or three commands at a Linux command line replace either dozens of labor hours, dozens of development hours, or the $$$ to purchase a specialized product in Windows
I guess that's the thing - those tools in a Linux command line aren't unique (except uniq:). Those tools are ported to Windows, and have been for ever. Sure, some of the shells aren't available but the big two are (bash & ksh).
Stopping development for 5 years on the most used browser, can't be a good thing for the internet. Simple as that.
Surely that depends on what functionality you don't get in modern browsers versus one that stopped five years ago? The answer is, not much. It's all client side improvements, the server side isn't really driven much by the browser - they just deliver content. As far as I'm aware there haven't been major revisions to any of the internet protocols in the last five years?
The client side improvements are mostly just usability things like tabbed browsing, enhanced security etc. In terms of what content I see in browsers, not much has changed in five years.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not exactly new, it's been in there since at least XP, can't quite remember if it was in 2000. There's a few of the Win+ shortcut keys which are useful - Win+E = Explorer, Win+L = Lock workstation, Win+F = Search, Win+D = Show Desktop.
I've always thought that the Linux kernel was a great example of a cathedral. Access to get anything into the kernel is strongly controlled by a set of "bishops" if you will - just that the bishops are somewhat more approachable that a commercial vendor (but only somewhat). ESR's attempts to generalise a set of rules about OSS software development based on a couple of small projects always seemed a bit tenuous to me...
Actually it did work really well when the Clinton administration did it. North Korea didn't resume their nuclear program until 2002 - when GWB was well in the white housse. Read more here.
So why don't they just get a warrant under the FISA provision? It's exactly what FISA is supposed to be for, why don't they just use it? Cause they don't want to?
Also, Bitlocker is only available on Vista, so are you saying you're running your production users on the Vista beta?
The final straw came when one employee lost several hours work when Bitlcoker suddenly had an error reading from our intranet file server and corrupted his project.
Bitlocker doesn't affect files read from network locations, it's merely a hard disk encryption technology. I think you're confused about what Bitlocker is.
Depends on whether you class Exchange as a "mail server", or whether it's a "workflow server". Whether or not you agree with it, having the calendar and mail client integrated brings a lot of benefit, not least of which is the fact that the transport for sending calendar invites (mail) and the method for processing those invites are integrated. Times have changed a bit since all mail servers did was handle mail (at least in the corporate world).
You've just confused the issue. You've gone from the measure of speed (km/h) to calculating total distance (km). To calculate distance given speed and time, yes you multiply the two, because the time in the denominator & numerator cancel. However, the discussion was about the km/h way of notating speed, which you claimed was confusing because it indicates division - which it does. Speed is kilometers divided by hours. It's that simple.
What?
Seriously dude, the measure of speed is distance per time. That is, the distance divided by the time - that gives you the measure of speed. In the post I responded to you used the example of metres/second (or as you put it, metres:second). You do realise that metres/second indicates the number of metres divided by the number of seconds right?
Isn't metres divided by seconds a measure of speed anyway? (i.e. distance divided by time)
I wish I had mod points, I'd mod you up in a second. You've neatly summarised my views on DRM - it could be a good thing for keeping corporate secrets secret, which at the moment is pretty hard - that whole analog hole thing...
IMO DRM has it's uses inside corporates, but becomes a real pain when it comes to consumer level devices. I'd be a very happy man if DRM didn't come near any of my home devices (PC, DVD, media player etc).
So is your claim that Linus (or some other person) wouldn't have written the tools if the GNU tools weren't available? The GNU tools are particularly unremarkable in that they are just free implementations of tools that already existed. If RMS/the GNU project hadn't made them available under the GPL, someone else would have written them. I guess that is the particular cleverness of both RMS & Linus - RMS made them available under a license that enourages sharing, Linus was smart enough not to reinvent the wheel.
A fix that by all accounts broke some printer drivers - so yeah, the independent programmers built a fix but it was of lower quality. I don't know about you, but where I am printing is kind of important...
Heard of an unhandled exception? i.e. a divide by 0 error should get trapped by the application. If the application doesn't handle it, the OS has to. I believe the default behaviour of NT in this situation is to blue screen. If the application had proper error handling (or input validation) it would have been fine...
They either get away with them, or the users find subtle ways to work around them, thus negating the policy completely. Either that or the users ignore the policy completely. The best security policies are the ones you can explain to the people who are affected by it and have them understand both the risk, and why you've implemented the policy. If you can't explain how the policy addresses a security risk, it's probably not a good policy...
It also takes time to become skilled, especially enough to pick up another project, read the code and then code a new feature for it. Frankly that's actually a reasonably significant time investment that most people simply won't have time to make. I know I'd rather spend my time making music than learning to code so I can implement a feature...
But I fear for society in a world where people refuse to learn because they don't want to, instead of can't.
How about a society where people prioritise their time differently according to what interests them, or to what they have time for?
It's only superior if you have the ability to code the feature you need. There's a huge assumption there that someone who is skilled at using a DAW is even inclined to code new features for an application. Personally speaking, I lack the skills to approach that, so a superior platform is one that lets me do what I want without having to code the feature. That's not to discount the value of being able to do that, but really, most modern DAW's are extensible in some way or another (be it via VST, or some API). Having said that, Audacity rocks!
IIRC, the first versions of UNIX were not designed to operate on networks, and this functionality was in fact bolted on later. The advantage UNIX has over Windows is that it bolted that stuff on 10 years earlier so has gone through a lot of the pain already.
Provided the initial cost of switching then translates into savings in the future I'm sure many companies will consider it. However, it's relatively hard to demonstrate that there will be savings, at the moment it seems that the most likely result will be that it's cost neutral. Therefore a lot of companies will just stick with Windows.
The failure of the Linux developers to provide a stable API to develop drivers against is hardly conducive to people developing good drivers. Having to recompile and redistribute drivers every time the kernel developers decide to break something isn't really that clever...
Well in a windows based operating system that's rather the point isn't it? It wouldn't be very much good if you didn't see a big remote desktop. And as far as the $$$ go, for remote admin TS has always been free. If you use it to provide user services, then it costs.
Dude, terminal services has been available for remote admin of Windows servers for five years now. If they're still running up and down stairs (or indeed using VNC) they're doing something badly wrong. Terminal Services is much lighter on bandwidth than VNC, and in dedicated LAN/WAN environments is great. Not so great over dial-up, but still usable in an emergency.
What about:
1. Mail History - sure it isn't hard to setup a new mail client, but can you maintain all their previously sent mail?
2. Application level settings - say you've got a bunch of Word templates that you want converted to OpenOffice format. What then?
That's two off the top of my head, I haven't even started thinking hard about this yet. Migration is important...
Plenty of people don't realise that part of Microsoft's strength is their migration ability (and I'm not really talking on the desktop here). You want to migrate from Groupwise to Exchange - there's a free tool for that - or Lotus Notes to Exchange, same again. What you don't see from the majority of their competitors are tools (or even best practice guidance) that go the other way. Microsoft make it very easy to migrate to their products (and the fact that they make it hard to migrate away helps them a bit as well :). If companies are going to compete with Microsoft, we have to see a migration path from one to the other, and think about interoperability. Lots of people complain that Microsoft doesn't interoperate with others well, and theres certainly truth to that, but interop works both ways.
I guess that's the thing - those tools in a Linux command line aren't unique (except uniq :). Those tools are ported to Windows, and have been for ever. Sure, some of the shells aren't available but the big two are (bash & ksh).
If it doesn't fill your needs, don't use it.
Bingo!
Surely that depends on what functionality you don't get in modern browsers versus one that stopped five years ago? The answer is, not much. It's all client side improvements, the server side isn't really driven much by the browser - they just deliver content. As far as I'm aware there haven't been major revisions to any of the internet protocols in the last five years?
The client side improvements are mostly just usability things like tabbed browsing, enhanced security etc. In terms of what content I see in browsers, not much has changed in five years.
So no, it's not as simple as that.