The real fun starts when Samba/Linux etc becomes the de-facto standard. When Microsoft does something that breaks ineroperability then it is Microsoft that is broken. When people start considering such as running samba on win32, that day is looming closer.
If you have better things to do than communicating clearly in this forum, don't be expected if others in this forum don't take you seriously.
Personally, I take everything on/. with a few grains of salt.
If he speaks 4 languages fluently, chances are that his native tounge is NOT English. His mind and fingers may not be totally in sync, but there is nothing sufficiently off to be upsetting or particularly noticeable. The communication is quite clear.
His position of trust is quite credible. There are several people you should never lie to, your doctor, your lawyer, your programmer.
dinosaur IBM mainframe still chugging away in the corner for the end of month run... the old machine ran DOS Yeowch! The only thing I've seen DOS used for was card-to-tape and tape-to-print on something like a 360/30, and that only as an interim stopgap. Post 1401 and pre PCP (OS/360 with ONE process). You can be sure that end of month run will be an unimaginable mess to convert.
"Saving money" by keeping the old disks on new hardware??? Insane. Ever look at the cost of replacing a crashed disk? The way to save money is to buy good new disks and use the old ones in cheap junk test systems.
The XML-variant is going to win. Methinks you're right. What's critical is the ability to send a document from the latest and greatest to someone running something that noone has ever hear of and hasn't been updated in the last five years and the recipient can actually read the *expletive-deleted* thing. Anything less and you've sabotaged yourself. The reason for standards is so you don't have to care what brand you're using.
unfortunate thing is that security is only as strong as your weakest link That's true if you use a "everybody inside can do everything, nobody outside can do anything" model of security. If you can set up security properly, one dumb and careless user would allow an attacker to do no more nor less than that dumb and careless user should be doing anyway.
UNIX was around long before the first VAX. The point to Multics was security. UNIX is software. VAX is hardware. I'm not at all sure how it could be possible for software to "borrow tons" from hardware.
The only things that UNIX stole from multics was users. Might be more accurate so say that UNIX stole some excellent developers. IIRC the only users that were stolen were the creators of UNIX.
What imaginary version of NT are you running that can be brought down by a DOS boot virus? Any version of NT that runs on x86 that has a BIOS. The BIOS turns control over to whatever is in the boot sector, and it can do it wants to. A DOS boot virus doesn't run under DOS, it runs on the bare metal. The wierdest thing I've seen was an NT system that would use an IDE zip drive fine with a boot sector virus and couldn't handle the zip drive without the boot sector virus. Wasn't worth keeping the virus just to be able to read/write the zip drive:-(
It's the RedHat licensing scheme. Buy some boxes. Upgrade some computers. And don't pitch that old box. It is upgradable just where needed, but it is so much less hassle to let the latest version update all those "little things" that you would really rather not mess with. What's hilarious is that I don't think anyone would buy a "RedHat 7.3 Upgrade" ( except maybe out of morbid curiosity;) Seriously, the new box comes with a bit of installation support, etc. which you just might need.
Symbiosis can be defined as mutual parasitism. The software itself might be the same, but there is a vast difference between what a corporation wants to buy and what a hacker wants to buy, as well as a large difference in willingness to pay. If they learn to play together, everybody gains.
Would you actually be safer blocking web and email and leaving everything else open?
Re:no-brainer, sounds like IT at work.
on
Web Services
·
· Score: 2
Hehe, that's what will kill proprietary formats like Microsoft Word's DOC. Unless it's readable on Microsoft's Internet Explorer, Opera, Netscape, Galeon, Konquerer, a few varieties of PDA, or any of a few dozen no-name brand browsers yet to be, it's going the way of the Dodo. If I can't read what I've written now five years from now, essentially regardless of what I am using five years from now, it's almost suicidal not to be looking for some format that's useable and that I can read five years from now.
Seems like security is a perimeter type of thing. Weakest link and all that. As long as people inside get email and have access to web pages and floppy disks, there is nothing a firewall can do that will actually make the network secure. A hair-trigger firewall seems like a good target for diversionary attacks.
I read it but have no good idea what it's talking about. Looks like it would be useful if you only wanted SOME of your network cards to beat on the root name servers.
"With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow" or something to that effect. It's the find and identify. A lot of bugs stay very well hidden until you look at them in just the right way.
He doesn't think you're serious. I don't think you're serious. But. There are some idiots that think Microsoft is the answer. There are some nice folks that need cue cards to know it's a joke. What make it funny is that Microsoft believes its own hype.
Who absorbs what risks between buyer and seller? It seems to me that there would be differences between free software and packaged software, between open source and closed source. Equitably, for free software, the buyer is assuming essentially all risks. Double your money back if not satisfied. With open source, the buyer is in a position to identify and fix problems and not totally at the mercy of the seller.
Slashdot Mirror
The real fun starts when Samba/Linux etc becomes the de-facto standard. When Microsoft does something that breaks ineroperability then it is Microsoft that is broken. When people start considering such as running samba on win32, that day is looming closer.
VS doesn't trust the OS to know what type the file is.
So.... just prepend some bytes of the "right" file format.
If you have better things to do than communicating clearly in this forum, don't be expected if others in this forum don't take you seriously.
/. with a few grains of salt.
Personally, I take everything on
If he speaks 4 languages fluently, chances are that his native tounge is NOT English. His mind and fingers may not be totally in sync, but there is nothing sufficiently off to be upsetting or particularly noticeable. The communication is quite clear.
His position of trust is quite credible. There are several people you should never lie to, your doctor, your lawyer, your programmer.
dinosaur IBM mainframe still chugging away in the corner for the end of month run ... the old machine ran DOS
Yeowch! The only thing I've seen DOS used for was card-to-tape and tape-to-print on something like a 360/30, and that only as an interim stopgap. Post 1401 and pre PCP (OS/360 with ONE process). You can be sure that end of month run will be an unimaginable mess to convert.
"Saving money" by keeping the old disks on new hardware??? Insane. Ever look at the cost of replacing a crashed disk? The way to save money is to buy good new disks and use the old ones in cheap junk test systems.
LCD is right.
Is it Moo-sic or Moo-zak?
The XML-variant is going to win.
Methinks you're right. What's critical is the ability to send a document from the latest and greatest to someone running something that noone has ever hear of and hasn't been updated in the last five years and the recipient can actually read the *expletive-deleted* thing.
Anything less and you've sabotaged yourself.
The reason for standards is so you don't have to care what brand you're using.
Somehow I think VMS would have troubles running on a PDP
64K should be enough for anybody, espectially if that's 64k data AND 64k program space.
unfortunate thing is that security is only as strong as your weakest link
That's true if you use a "everybody inside can do everything, nobody outside can do anything" model of security. If you can set up security properly, one dumb and careless user would allow an attacker to do no more nor less than that dumb and careless user should be doing anyway.
UNIX was around long before the first VAX.
The point to Multics was security.
UNIX is software. VAX is hardware. I'm not at all sure how it could be possible for software to "borrow tons" from hardware.
The only things that UNIX stole from multics was users.
Might be more accurate so say that UNIX stole some excellent developers.
IIRC the only users that were stolen were the creators of UNIX.
What imaginary version of NT are you running that can be brought down by a DOS boot virus? :-(
Any version of NT that runs on x86 that has a BIOS. The BIOS turns control over to whatever is in the boot sector, and it can do it wants to. A DOS boot virus doesn't run under DOS, it runs on the bare metal.
The wierdest thing I've seen was an NT system that would use an IDE zip drive fine with a boot sector virus and couldn't handle the zip drive without the boot sector virus. Wasn't worth keeping the virus just to be able to read/write the zip drive
It's the RedHat licensing scheme. Buy some boxes. Upgrade some computers. And don't pitch that old box. ;)
It is upgradable just where needed, but it is so much less hassle to let the latest version update all those "little things" that you would really rather not mess with.
What's hilarious is that I don't think anyone would buy a "RedHat 7.3 Upgrade" ( except maybe out of morbid curiosity
Seriously, the new box comes with a bit of installation support, etc. which you just might need.
When you license software the manufacturer retains title to the software
Then charge them for storage.
Well, ....
There always the Honor Virus.
Symbiosis can be defined as mutual parasitism.
The software itself might be the same, but there is a vast difference between what a corporation wants to buy and what a hacker wants to buy, as well as a large difference in willingness to pay. If they learn to play together, everybody gains.
Live Music
or
Dead Music
?
If her reasoning is accurate, she should be screaming her head off about being quoted without authorization.
Would you actually be safer blocking web and email and leaving everything else open?
Hehe, that's what will kill proprietary formats like Microsoft Word's DOC. Unless it's readable on Microsoft's Internet Explorer, Opera, Netscape, Galeon, Konquerer, a few varieties of PDA, or any of a few dozen no-name brand browsers yet to be, it's going the way of the Dodo.
If I can't read what I've written now five years from now, essentially regardless of what I am using five years from now, it's almost suicidal not to be looking for some format that's useable and that I can read five years from now.
Just remember .NET
These are the folks bringing you
Seems like security is a perimeter type of thing. Weakest link and all that.
As long as people inside get email and have access to web pages and floppy disks, there is nothing a firewall can do that will actually make the network secure. A hair-trigger firewall seems like a good target for diversionary attacks.
I read it but have no good idea what it's talking about.
Looks like it would be useful if you only wanted SOME of your network cards to beat on the root name servers.
"With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow" or something to that effect.
It's the find and identify. A lot of bugs stay very well hidden until you look at them in just the right way.
He doesn't think you're serious. I don't think you're serious. But.
There are some idiots that think Microsoft is the answer.
There are some nice folks that need cue cards to know it's a joke.
What make it funny is that Microsoft believes its own hype.
The patch for this was available for a month before the exploits started rolling in.
Which leads to the question of why it wasn't applied.
Who absorbs what risks between buyer and seller? It seems to me that there would be differences between free software and packaged software, between open source and closed source.
Equitably, for free software, the buyer is assuming essentially all risks. Double your money back if not satisfied.
With open source, the buyer is in a position to identify and fix problems and not totally at the mercy of the seller.