Ok I see. Well you are right. My guess would be that it's a big deal here because it's got a creative commons license attached to it (which in reality means little). Since just about everyone here is an open source zealot, it's automatically big news.
Because most of their revenue probably derives from concert sales. Allowing the sharing of their videos only serves to get more young people introduced to Pearl Jam. The more 14 year olds discover Pearl Jam, the more 14 year olds might go out and discover their old albums like Ten and Vs, and also come to see them live.
McAfee with EPO server to manage deployment and updates works very well. It might be overkill for a small place such as yours, but if you want to maintain a 'tight shop', EPO is a good fit. Besides updating clients, it also collects data on any infections, and the clients with the "rougue system sensor*" installed can notify you of clients on the network who don't have AV installed or don't have the "Epo agent*" (the client part) installed.
*Note to open Source software makers - this is a good example how to name your wares. Names like "Rogue System Sensor", though sensationalistic and irrelevant in themselves, sound better than names like "GIMP".
I assume by McAfee hvaing a "black eye", you meant the recent definition fiasco. We were not affected by it. We've been with McAfee since 3.x and have never been compelled to switch to anytyhing else. McAfee has always has good business support - for example, starting way back with 4.x, their installer has been msi based and has fully supported being deployed via AD group policies.
Ok, enough pimping McAfee. I sound like a f--ing salemans here.
Some others are recommending Avast. I really like Avast and use it at home, but when the time came to renew our McAfee license, I went out and priced Avast's Enterprise solution and it was actually more expensive than McAfee for the number of license we needed. Maybe their pricing is better now, or better for smaller number of clients.
...would someone find what the parent wrote "Insightful".
Microsoft bought the TCP stack for Windows NT4 from a company called Spider Systems. The stack that they bought happened to be based on the BSD stack. They later rewrote the TCP stack from scratch for Win2k.
So it was Spider Systems that used (not stole) the BSD TCP stack - not Microsoft.
"Again, I don't hate FreeBSD as a concept. I just know it's not right for the business environment"
Perhaps it wasn't right in the particular business enviroment you worked in, but your one experience fixing the mess of an organization who obviously excercised some poor planning does not make FreeBSD "not ready for business"; It simply illustrates the fact that FreeBSD is not suitable for everything.
When I connect to our site's DC from my Windows workstation here are work, the times are indentical to the second. I also have my OpenBSD machines get their time from our Windows DC.
But i realize, "to the second" doesn't mean "to the milisecond". How do you even find out how far off your clock is from another machine in Windows? `net time` sure as hell doesn't do it.
To me and many others I know, the recall was not at all about the power crisis; It was about the 30+ billion dollar deficit that Davis repeatedly lied about during his re-election campaign. The power crisis was the result of bad planning by several different administrations over a long period of time. The deficit was a different matter and could have been at least curtailed by the Davis administration.
I got an Areca 1210 PCIE SATAII RAID controller with my new system. It works like a champ with FreeBSD 5.x and 6.x. It's a tad pricey at $350, but it rocks, and it even works with Windows.
overclocked it jsut a tad, and it ran fine for awhile, but after a month or so I experienced some lockups. Checked the temps and they were ok. Clocked it down to normal speed and I still got the lock-ups. Clocked it down even further and the lock-ups stopped. Ended up having to run the chip 200mhz slower that mormal speed from then on.
His talk about IIS being exploited more than Apache is pretty much 100% bullshit. I can only assume that it's based on statistics from 2001 from attrition.org mirror, which are completely irrelevant today as reflected by stats collected by zone-h.org which took over the task of mirroring defacements when attrition quit. In the last four years, IIS servers have not exploited more often than Apache servers - the numbers have falled right in line with......get ready....yes, that's right.....marketshare!
His section "Myths: Conclusions Based on Single Metrics" is nice peice of hypocracy as in his other arguments, he himself leaves out many metrics himeself when making his points. The IIS/Apache example is one of them. He says, "IIS has long been the primary target for worms and other attacks." Well, to be precise, there were a couple of IIS worms that exploited a couple of vulnerabilities, and none of them exploited a vulnerability that hadn't allready been patched. The same mass-infection could have happened with the slapper worm if apache admins had been as lazy about updating as Windows admins were in the code red days.
The hilarious, "Linux is Modular by Design, not Monolithic" section is another laugher. The linux kernel is just as monolithic as any other kernel, and userland applications beyond the scope of awk, grep, and sed are jsut as "monolithic" in nature as anything you'll find in Windows. The author talks as if Windows is one giant 500MB "windows.exe" file or something, when in fact is operates using a collection of interconnected shared libraries just like linux does.
There is really funny quote from the article too, that can be turned around and spit right back into the authors face quite easily...
Here is the quote:
"Interdependencies like these have two unfortunate cascading side effects. First, in a monolithic system, every flaw in a piece of that system is exposed through all of the services and applications that depend on that piece of the system. When Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into the operating system, Microsoft created a system where any flaw in Internet Explorer could expose your Windows desktop to risks that go far beyond what you do with your browser. A single flaw in Internet Explorer is therefore exposed in countless other applications, many of which may use Internet Explorer in a way that is not obvious to the user, giving the user a false sense of security."
Now, here is the same quote, from a...different perspective:
"Interdependencies like these have two unfortunate cascading side effects. First, in a monolithic system, every flaw in a piece of that system is exposed through all of the services and applications that depend on that piece of the system. When GNU/Linux distributors integrated zlib into the operating system, [they] created a system where any flaw in zlib could expose your linux distribution to risks that go far beyond the simple task of file compression. A single flaw in zlib is therefore exposed in countless other applications, many of which may use zlib in a way that is not obvious to the user, giving the user a false sense of security."
Lastly, you must consider who the author is. The article is written by Nicholas Petreley, who is Editor In Chief Of "TUX magazine", and "Linux Journal magazine". His whole livelyhood is dedicated to and hinges on the success of linux. It's like having Paul Thurott (who is an idiot BTW), or Steve Gibson (a smart guy, but misguided and a media whore) writing up a comparison article.
If someday, you actually manage to learn a little bit about how *nix and Windows work, you'll back and feel embarrassed about citing that article in an argument.
"Your FreeBSD vs Gentoo is the same. Simply because you weren't mentally capable of harnessing the awesome power of FreeBSD, but were able to get Gentoo to work for you, doesn't mean that the job might not have been better completed by FreeBSD. It speaks more to your own lack of ability than anything else. Especially as others have shown FreeBSD to be able to excell at the very same job you say it has failed at."
"Is it just me or does the insecurity of the FreeBSD community shine through here in blinding fashion?"
No, it's not just you. All minority software communities tend to exibit this behavior. Us FreeBSD users like our little OS, and those of us who have learned this in's and out's of it know how to make it sing. When we see people that have run into problems that would probably have been trivial for us to solve, it's a natural tendency to get defensive. After using a system for awhile, you tend to learn little things that are not obvious to the begginers, and you tend to forget that the knowledge you've accumulated didn't exactly come overnight.
You're bound to get the same sort of reactions in other communities - for example, when some new linux user starts bitching about linux because [insert distro here]'s n00balicious GUI installer didn't detect his monitor's resolution correctly.*
*I use that example, because I see it all the time in linux forums.
For awhile in the late 80's in California (not sure about other states), light trucks were sold without back bumpers. This was allowed because of some exception in the law that applied to "work vehicles". Dealers would take advantage of this and sell all of their light trucks without a back bumpers and offer them as add-on options at insanely high prices. I think the law was changed because I don't see them sold without bumpers anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
I just realized that I misread your orignal comment. I missed the 'nt at the end of would. Your wording wans't funky. My reading was.
Ok I see. Well you are right. My guess would be that it's a big deal here because it's got a creative commons license attached to it (which in reality means little). Since just about everyone here is an open source zealot, it's automatically big news.
Because most of their revenue probably derives from concert sales. Allowing the sharing of their videos only serves to get more young people introduced to Pearl Jam. The more 14 year olds discover Pearl Jam, the more 14 year olds might go out and discover their old albums like Ten and Vs, and also come to see them live.
McAfee with EPO server to manage deployment and updates works very well. It might be overkill for a small place such as yours, but if you want to maintain a 'tight shop', EPO is a good fit. Besides updating clients, it also collects data on any infections, and the clients with the "rougue system sensor*" installed can notify you of clients on the network who don't have AV installed or don't have the "Epo agent*" (the client part) installed.
*Note to open Source software makers - this is a good example how to name your wares. Names like "Rogue System Sensor", though sensationalistic and irrelevant in themselves, sound better than names like "GIMP".
I assume by McAfee hvaing a "black eye", you meant the recent definition fiasco. We were not affected by it. We've been with McAfee since 3.x and have never been compelled to switch to anytyhing else. McAfee has always has good business support - for example, starting way back with 4.x, their installer has been msi based and has fully supported being deployed via AD group policies.
Ok, enough pimping McAfee. I sound like a f--ing salemans here.
Some others are recommending Avast. I really like Avast and use it at home, but when the time came to renew our McAfee license, I went out and priced Avast's Enterprise solution and it was actually more expensive than McAfee for the number of license we needed. Maybe their pricing is better now, or better for smaller number of clients.
"It sure irritates me to see BSD groups actually helping proprietary vendors compete against open source."
It irritates me that people like you don't get the point of the BSD license.
...would someone find what the parent wrote "Insightful".
Microsoft bought the TCP stack for Windows NT4 from a company called Spider Systems. The stack that they bought happened to be based on the BSD stack. They later rewrote the TCP stack from scratch for Win2k.
So it was Spider Systems that used (not stole) the BSD TCP stack - not Microsoft.
Polish jokes are still popular for those of us with an New England roots.
"Again, I don't hate FreeBSD as a concept. I just know it's not right for the business environment"
Perhaps it wasn't right in the particular business enviroment you worked in, but your one experience fixing the mess of an organization who obviously excercised some poor planning does not make FreeBSD "not ready for business"; It simply illustrates the fact that FreeBSD is not suitable for everything.
"My investigations indicate that this is an implementation flaw in the Windows NT kernel which has existed since day one...."
;)
One man's flaw is another man's "who gives a fuck?".
Might this have something to do with the fact that NT was never intended nor designed to be used in real time applications?
When I connect to our site's DC from my Windows workstation here are work, the times are indentical to the second. I also have my OpenBSD machines get their time from our Windows DC.
But i realize, "to the second" doesn't mean "to the milisecond". How do you even find out how far off your clock is from another machine in Windows? `net time` sure as hell doesn't do it.
"Just say NO to flash."
In FreeBSD flash says no to you.
"There are thousands of vulnerabilities that have been exploited on Windows, and like 20 potential on Macs, and that's equal?"
Exaggerate much?
Try this....
#kldload snd_driver
And then stick that line in your '/boot/loader.conf'
To me and many others I know, the recall was not at all about the power crisis; It was about the 30+ billion dollar deficit that Davis repeatedly lied about during his re-election campaign. The power crisis was the result of bad planning by several different administrations over a long period of time. The deficit was a different matter and could have been at least curtailed by the Davis administration.
I got an Areca 1210 PCIE SATAII RAID controller with my new system. It works like a champ with FreeBSD 5.x and 6.x. It's a tad pricey at $350, but it rocks, and it even works with Windows.
ooh ooh me too!
AthlonXP 2800+:
overclocked it jsut a tad, and it ran fine for awhile, but after a month or so I experienced some lockups. Checked the temps and they were ok. Clocked it down to normal speed and I still got the lock-ups. Clocked it down even further and the lock-ups stopped. Ended up having to run the chip 200mhz slower that mormal speed from then on.
I don't mess with clock settings any more.
His section "Myths: Conclusions Based on Single Metrics" is nice peice of hypocracy as in his other arguments, he himself leaves out many metrics himeself when making his points. The IIS/Apache example is one of them. He says, "IIS has long been the primary target for worms and other attacks." Well, to be precise, there were a couple of IIS worms that exploited a couple of vulnerabilities, and none of them exploited a vulnerability that hadn't allready been patched. The same mass-infection could have happened with the slapper worm if apache admins had been as lazy about updating as Windows admins were in the code red days.
The hilarious, "Linux is Modular by Design, not Monolithic" section is another laugher. The linux kernel is just as monolithic as any other kernel, and userland applications beyond the scope of awk, grep, and sed are jsut as "monolithic" in nature as anything you'll find in Windows. The author talks as if Windows is one giant 500MB "windows.exe" file or something, when in fact is operates using a collection of interconnected shared libraries just like linux does.
There is really funny quote from the article too, that can be turned around and spit right back into the authors face quite easily...
Here is the quote:
Now, here is the same quote, from a...different perspective:
Lastly, you must consider who the author is. The article is written by Nicholas Petreley, who is Editor In Chief Of "TUX magazine", and "Linux Journal magazine". His whole livelyhood is dedicated to and hinges on the success of linux. It's like having Paul Thurott (who is an idiot BTW), or Steve Gibson (a smart guy, but misguided and a media whore) writing up a comparison article.
"Thusfar, there's only two projects I've seen that have security written into their designs from the start: GPG (duh), and the good folks at OpenBSD."
I would throw postfix and djbdns in there too.
If someday, you actually manage to learn a little bit about how *nix and Windows work, you'll back and feel embarrassed about citing that article in an argument.
"Your FreeBSD vs Gentoo is the same. Simply because you weren't mentally capable of harnessing the awesome power of FreeBSD, but were able to get Gentoo to work for you, doesn't mean that the job might not have been better completed by FreeBSD. It speaks more to your own lack of ability than anything else. Especially as others have shown FreeBSD to be able to excell at the very same job you say it has failed at."
Oh come on dude, that's harsh!!
"Is it just me or does the insecurity of the FreeBSD community shine through here in blinding fashion?"
No, it's not just you. All minority software communities tend to exibit this behavior. Us FreeBSD users like our little OS, and those of us who have learned this in's and out's of it know how to make it sing. When we see people that have run into problems that would probably have been trivial for us to solve, it's a natural tendency to get defensive. After using a system for awhile, you tend to learn little things that are not obvious to the begginers, and you tend to forget that the knowledge you've accumulated didn't exactly come overnight.
You're bound to get the same sort of reactions in other communities - for example, when some new linux user starts bitching about linux because [insert distro here]'s n00balicious GUI installer didn't detect his monitor's resolution correctly.*
*I use that example, because I see it all the time in linux forums.
"When it gets to be v1.0, try to resist any urge that might hit you or the core developers to make childish jabs at MS."
No worries. It's a BSD distro, not a linux distro.
For awhile in the late 80's in California (not sure about other states), light trucks were sold without back bumpers. This was allowed because of some exception in the law that applied to "work vehicles". Dealers would take advantage of this and sell all of their light trucks without a back bumpers and offer them as add-on options at insanely high prices. I think the law was changed because I don't see them sold without bumpers anymore.
So I must ask, do you happen to be wearing any flamingo-pinkish colored clothing right now?
"Mr. Jintao. Tear down that wall!"
*applause*