It's more like "how dare Microsoft charge extra for a workaround instead of fixing the shortcomings in the first place for free, like companies in every other industry (such as the auto industry) would be forced to do?!"
Almost all malware exploits shortcomings in the user, not the software.
Yes, but it does not mean those that get it themsevles get a right to reproduce it and distribute those copies, now do it?
I would say that it does, because of the inherent way the web and usenet work.
Of course not, copyright still applies just as to something you publish on the net. You seems to be under the impresssion that as soon as something is available on the net, copyright no longer apply. Strange.
Not only me, but the legal system (which, given copyright only exists as a legal construct and has no natural equivalent, is fairly significant). Basing their ruling, I would imagine, on a concept of "implied rights". If you publish your work with the knowledge and intent that it be widely and publically distributed, via a system fundamentally based on the distribution, replication and retention of multiple copies then you have implicitly given others the right to copy, store and distribute your works as necessary to comply with your initial intention.
Hence, it is not their responsibility to confirm with you every time they distribute a copy - per your initial intentions - it is your responsibility to tell them when that intention is no longer valid.
For your book analogy to be accurate, the person would not only be handing out books on the corner, *but also* telling everyone who took one to make copies for anyone else who asked. As such, if the author wanted this situation to change (ie: restrict the distribution of the book), the onus should be on them to track down everyone who had taken a copy of their book and ask them to stop making copies.
(This whole situation is just another example of how the whole concept of copyright is broken.)
The government and Senator Brian Harradine deny any such deal over the abortion drug years and years ago.
Yes. It's amazing how what politicians say and what politicians do don't always coincide, isn't it ?
For about two years Harradine held the balance of power. During that time, the Government was more than happy to dance to his tune so they could get their legislation passed.
It's a Labor meme.
Unfortunately for your rhetoric, I'm not a Labour supporter.
Sen. Harradine's roots were in Labor [...]
This does not change that his very socially-conservative views - particularly about abortion - are religiously motivated.
Non-Australian readers also mightn't realise that abortion remains criminal in most of Australia.
You have passed the point of misinformation, into outright lying. Abortions can be legally performed in Australia. 5 minutes on Google will show this (although it is because of legal precedent, not specific legislation).
This is why the entire debate - and in particular the insistence by the usual anti-abortion suspects that it wasn't about the "morality" of abortion - was ridiculous. Abortion is legal in Australia and has been for over thirty years. Depending on who you ask, up to 120,000 abortions are performed every year (unsurprisingly, without 120,000 subsequent trials). As simply another method of performing abortion, there was no justifiable reason for RU486 to be treated specially. It was nothing more than *blatant* pandering to social conservatives by the Liberal party, so they could get Harradine's support.
The private members' bill was a power grab taking advantage of anti-Catholic prejudice.
This was about as far from a "power grab" as you could get. Mainly because no "power" was "grabbed". No other drug is - or has been - subject to the arbitrary restrictions that were applied to RU486. There was no legal, medical, ethical, moral or other rational reason why RU486 should have been given special conditions in the first place. The bill did nothing more than place RU486 in exactly the same position any other drug is before it is approved for importation and use in Australia - subject to the approval of the TGA.
In summary, the short version is:
Many years ago, legislation was passed requiring the Health Minister's special approval to import and prescribe abortion drugs like RU486.
Recently, a private members bill removed this special control. These drugs are now subject to the standard approvals process all drugs face.
Anti-abortionists are trying to paint this as being "unusual", or "anti-Catholic", or somehow endowing the TGA with special powers it wouldn't normally have (or doesn't have with other drugs) when, in fact, it's just the restoration of the status quo.
Why ? Howard is one of the most well-informed and publically aware politicians in the country. Unlike, say, Beazly, who (by his own admission) often goes days without even reading a newspaper.
As an Australian myself, I have never had a high level of respect for John Howard; the Australian Liberal Party's customary economic ability notwithstanding, I do not consider Howard to be a great orator, a great statesman, or really a great man in any respect. I have a cousin who has met with him and holds quite a large degree of admiration for him, and this cousin and I have had debates on that subject on a few occasions.
It is this perception of "averageness" that is generally considered the cornerstone of Howard's political success, particularly as Prime Minister.
People vote for him because they perceive him to be "just like them" - at least as much as any modern politician can be. The is in contrast to common spokepeople from other political parties, who have a habit of talking down their noses at anyone who doesn't agree with their "obviously superior" intellect and opinions.
The incompetence (Labour), irrelevance (Democrats) and plain old silliness (Greens) of the alternatives don't help much, either. The Liberals are going to be in power for a while yet - and their downfall is most likely to come because of some economic meltdown suddenly making people more interested in good Government services, because they can no longer afford stuff themselves.
What's more likely? That a CTO of a major ISP actually doesn't understand the concept of a 'phishing site', or said CTO is prevaricating because the Government is breathing down his neck? You do the math.
Hmm. Incompetent IT Management or Government oppression...
Incompetent IT Management or Government oppression...
Incompetent IT Management or Government oppression...
And the opposition aren't actually much better - they have just successfully campaigned to remove accountability for controversial drug approvals from the Health Minister [who might have to justify himself to the Australian people] and pass it to an entirely unaccountable "panel of experts". I wonder how long before John Howard realises that so long as you pass all the unpopular decisions to an unaccountable "panel of experts" then no voter can ever reasonably complain about anything you do!
For non Australians, what *actually* happened, was that the Health Minister had veto power over a *single* drug - the abortion pill RU486 - and that veto power has been removed. The only reason the Health Minister even had such a veto was because several years earlier the Government had traded it for the support in Parliament of a Christian fundie independent MP, since at that time they needed it to have legislation passed.
The situation has *nothing* to do with "accountability" and everything to do with anti-abortion agenda of the Christian Right. Parent post should be modded "-1, Blatant Misinformation".
would it be OK for me to post a leter to everyone in my apartment block asking them to reply if they don't want me to break in to their home and take all their stuf. If they don't reply, I'm doing nothing illegal by breaking in and taking it all, right?
This is such a patently ridiculous analogy I'm amazed you even managed to come up with it...
The difference is, when you post something on the web (or usenet), you are doing so with the *knowledge and intention* that your "content" will be freely available and distributed to all.
In your example, OTOH, you are working *against* the implicit intentions of everyone whose house you break into.
Clearly, companies have wide latitude in archiving, repurposing, and republishing anything individuals put on the web or on USENET, without the permission of those individuals. I think that's bad, but we'll have to live with the consequences.
Why is it bad that content made available with the knowledge - if not intention - that said content be widely and freely distributed, continue to be widely and freely distributed ?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to work with the assumption that anything on the public internet (or usenet, etc) is put there with the intention of wide scale distribution and the onus be on the "publishers" to chase up copies of their content if they later change their mind. This would be the same as happens with any other form of distribution of copyrighted material - eg: if I already own a CD and the copyright holder decides they don't want their "content" to be available anymore *at all*, as far as I know my CD doesn't suddenly become illegal.
Of course, I'm also someone who things the whole concept of "intellectual property" is pretty much broken by design...
For instance, only Arab immigrants are required to watch the racy film, immigrants with blond hair and blue eyes won't have to.
False.
There are some major exemptions. EU nationals, asylum-seekers and skilled workers who earn more than $54,000 per year will not be required to take the 30-minute computerized exam.
Also, citizens of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and Switzerland are exempt.
There's a rather large chunk of the world not covered by those exemptions who aren't "Arab". Like, say, China, South America and half of Africa. Not to mention a substantial proportion of those who _are_ covered by the exceptions don't have "blond hair and blue eyes".
Remember guys, if she really loves you and it really is "always and forever," she will have no problem signing that prenup.
Yes, she will - and justifiably, IMHO, because a pre-nup is demonstration of a lack of trust (in either the other party or themselves). Without trust, a relationship will not work.
While I certainly agree with your sentiments regarding the economical and statistical realities of marriage and divorce, and that men in particular should think long and hard about financial consequences before tying the knot, from a relationship perspective, if you think you need a pre-nup then you shouldn't be getting married.
Unless, of course, you're getting married for reasons independent of an emotional relationship, in which case a pre-nup is simply another aspect of the paperwork.
Re:Windows XP incomplete without more software
on
Gnome 2.14 Released
·
· Score: 1
Hackers get OSX86 up and running on Dells with relative ease, despite Apple's best efforts to prevent them from doing so.
Apple aren't really trying particularly hard to stop OS X running on commodity x86 hardware. All they're really interested in doing is making it harder than just dropping an OS X CD into a Dell and running the install, because that will stop 99% of people for whom purchasing a Mac is actually a realistic consideration. More effort than that isn't really economical.
When we could have had the vastly superior F-16 or F-15. It's not like we need the naval capabilities of the F-18.
I'm far from an expert (and too lazy at the moment to do any research), but how do the F16 and F18 compare in terms of combat radius ? Could the F18 having twin engines be considered essential in such a sparsely populated country ? Was the F15 even an option (cost, availability) ?
Not to mention, we live on an island - and you can't see why an aircraft with excellent naval attack capabilities might be useful ?
The US is scrapping their Tomcats, maybe we should just pick some of those up on the cheap.
My understanding is that F14s have little to no ground attack capabilities, which probably makes them a poor candidate.
Windows did its own memory management, but it avoided as much hardware interfacing as possible. You needed to load DOS drivers for any drives other than a floppy or a standard hard disk.
Not really accurate. Windows 3.x didn't *require* its own drivers - it could access hardware via DOS drivers - but it could also load its own drivers for things like disk controllers (remember "32 bit disk access" ?).
Windows 95 functioned basically the same way, it just had more native drivers - it *could* use DOS to access the hardware, but could also use its own "native" drivers.
Windows didn't do any disk caching on its own and required the DOS cache, Smartdrive, if you wanted any.
Yes it did (it was added in Windows for Workgroups 3.11 - "32 bit file access").
SCSI and Ethernet cards needed DOS drivers loaded.
Ethernet cards didn't need DOS drivers.
Again, with things like SCSI, Windows could *either* use DOS _or_ its own "native" drivers (if they existed).
Now, a lot of this stuff is only in Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (particularly the networking and "32 bit" disk access/caching) and isn't in Windows 3.0, but certainly from 3.0 onwards, Windows was running the CPU in protected mode, doing its own hardware access, memory management, CPU scheduling, etc. All the stuff OSes do. It certainly required DOS to start, and would use DOS if it had to, but it also took over a lot of functionality from DOS if it could.
The short version is, from Windows 3.0 onwards, Windows was far closer to an OS than an "application". As it progressed, it took on more and more features of an OS, until it ended with Windows 9x
Are we talking about windows 3.1, because that wasn't really an OS, just an application that ran on DOS.
Given Windows 3.1 did just about everything from hardware interfacing to memory management, I'd say it was pretty damn close to an "OS" (and a hell of a lot more than "just an application").
Windows 1.0, and maybe 2.0 could be put into the "just an application" baskets, but from 3.x onwards Windows was providing most all OS functionality.
You left out "incredibly chatty" and "hopelessly lag-sensitive", two attributes that make CIFS-based operations over an extended WAN environment painful at best.
So, how are you going getting that screw out with your hammer ?
Avoidable mistake. IP address typo, using spaces instead of tabs (or vice versa), not closing a set of brackets, etc, etc. The unforgiving nature of most unix apps with respect to configuration data, combined with the aforementioned fundamental problems in the unix model means the possible failures due to even a simple typo are too numerous to list, but they can range from the brutally obvious (an entire machine disappearing off the network due to a misconfigured NIC) to the frustratingly subtle (several thousand firewall rules circumvented by a mistyped "pass" rule).
Everyone with any amount of real world experience has done it - and the simple point I'm trying (and failing, it would appear) to get across here is that such mistakes are *completely* avoidable with just a tiny bit of intelligence and humility applied to configuration management by using the software to eliminate the possibility of human error whenever practical.
How often do UNIX/Linux/BSD boxes fail at all, let alone because of an error in typing a configuration file?
IME, most failures are due to operator error.
Do you have data on how often UNIX sysadmins edit configuration files, or are you just guessing?
I'm estimating based on experience. Not that it's particularly relevant to the discussion. Frequency and consequences are two independent issues.
Are there particular files that admins must frequently edit, or is the sheer number of such files?
It's the habits they encourage that are the problem.
If editing text files is such an "inferior" way to maintain computers, then why do UNIX/Linux sysadmins manage more computers than their Windows counterparts?
How is this relevant ? Are you seriously suggesting *no improvements* need to be made in the field of systems administration ?
How many person hours a day could one save by automating configuration?
The real question is how much downtime can be avoided.
Also, you're missing the point. This is not about "automating" configuration, it's about doing configuration better.
As for preventing the sysadmins from manually changing settings, maybe you (or Microsoft) should try to prevent unauthorized parties from changing the settings.
You need to try and stay on topic, rather than trying to turn every second post into "Microsoft sux0rs and everything about unix is perfect", because not only is the former aspect utterly childish, everything about unix most certainly is *NOT* perfect.
Microsoft has a monopoly. What they do is not a direct reflection of consumer demand.
You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
Perhaps you mean mis-managed?
No.
Environments that roll out patches ad-hoc, with no scheduling or testing, are "mis-managed".
Patches should be released when they're ready. Tools should apply them once this happens.
Yes, because IT workers just love getting unexpected phone calls about things breaking.
Wating around for a specfic day of the month is silly.
Wrong. Do the word "scheduled maintenance" even exist in your vocabulary ?
Unbuntu is not the only distro to fix things on a timely basis. Gentoo does this as well.
Truly two pioneering powerhouses of the enterprise Linux world.
You don't seem to get it:
On the contrary. I do "get it".
I don't care what the vendor's patch cycle is, I want it fixed BEFORE someone exploits it. Do you think attackers wait until a specfic day of the month before breaking into your system?
If you seriously think properly managed environments do the equivalent of turning Windows Update to "Automatically Download and Install Updates" then you're either very naive or very stupid. Either way, if you're at all involved with actually following your own advice in somebody's IT infrastructure, you (and they) are in for a world of hurt one day.
All systems come with a text editor, so you can always, worst case scenario, edit it with that.
Which is quite possibly the only redeeming feature plain text configuration files have and it is, at best, a mixed blessing.
Nor am I suggesting it be changed.
If it needs to be edited by people (won't mantion any names) who can only click buttons and mark checkboxes, it's a darn sight easier to build a pretty frontend to a text file than some cryptic binary crap.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with clicking buttons or checking boxes. It has to do with good software engineering and design.
It may not have the automatic "transactionality" of a fully transcational data base, but it is something.
Yes. It's called relying on humans to do the right thing. Also known as prolonging the inevitable.
I cannot comprehend why are you so set against the idea *helping* sysadmins to make their lives easier, their systems more managable and their services more reliable, just so you can revel in the glory of being a 1337 h4x0r with sed, awk, grep, vi and friends.
To what extent is maintaing configuration files a "common" activity?
I would expect any unix sysadmin in a non-trivial environment does it several times a day.
To what extent can one automate the maintenance of configuration files?
A lot less now than it could be if the system was better designed.
Should system administrators be able to maintain the system manually if need be?
Yes. My point is that they should *not* be doing so in anything less than extraordinary circumstances and the system should actively prevent them from trying to do so, in anything less than extraordinary circumstances.
As for having a common API, historically, UNIX configuration data were text-based for ease of manipualtion.
And a common API wouldn't change this. Indeed, a common API and standardised maintenace tools to go along with it would substantially *improve* "ease of manipulation".
As for letting you shoot yourself in the foot, yes, that's possible. Does a Lamborghini prevent you from exceeding the speed limit?
No. But it certainly prevents you from over-revving the engine, putting it into reverse when you're doing 200km/h and hot-wiring it with a screwdriver. Not to mention things like traction control, ABS, independent braking, dynamic aerodynamic changes (well, not sure if the Lambo does this, but some Porsches certainly do), fuel injection metering, airflow metering, etc, etc, etc.
Rest assured that a modern vehicle can do a hell of a better job at just about every aspect of driving a car than you - or anyone else - possibly could and is chock full of restrictions and protective measures that directly prevent - or at the very least substantially impede - your ability to damange yourself or the vehicle.
Added to that, your analogy is ridiculous.
Would you recommend any operating systems as having a good configuration database?
Windows and OS X are a hell of a lot closer than Linux or unix. Neither are flawless, of course, but their problems are more on the implementation side than the design side.
Even more important, proprietary UNIX are almost dead aready, why does MS thinks that it will be sucessfull introducing a new proprietary UNIX now? Why does it think that people will buy that UNIX.
They're not "introducing a new, proprietry UNIX", they're offering a migration path from existing unix systems to Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost all malware exploits shortcomings in the user, not the software.
I would say that it does, because of the inherent way the web and usenet work.
Of course not, copyright still applies just as to something you publish on the net. You seems to be under the impresssion that as soon as something is available on the net, copyright no longer apply. Strange.
Not only me, but the legal system (which, given copyright only exists as a legal construct and has no natural equivalent, is fairly significant). Basing their ruling, I would imagine, on a concept of "implied rights". If you publish your work with the knowledge and intent that it be widely and publically distributed, via a system fundamentally based on the distribution, replication and retention of multiple copies then you have implicitly given others the right to copy, store and distribute your works as necessary to comply with your initial intention.
Hence, it is not their responsibility to confirm with you every time they distribute a copy - per your initial intentions - it is your responsibility to tell them when that intention is no longer valid.
For your book analogy to be accurate, the person would not only be handing out books on the corner, *but also* telling everyone who took one to make copies for anyone else who asked. As such, if the author wanted this situation to change (ie: restrict the distribution of the book), the onus should be on them to track down everyone who had taken a copy of their book and ask them to stop making copies.
(This whole situation is just another example of how the whole concept of copyright is broken.)
Yes. It's amazing how what politicians say and what politicians do don't always coincide, isn't it ?
For about two years Harradine held the balance of power. During that time, the Government was more than happy to dance to his tune so they could get their legislation passed.
It's a Labor meme.
Unfortunately for your rhetoric, I'm not a Labour supporter.
Sen. Harradine's roots were in Labor [...]
This does not change that his very socially-conservative views - particularly about abortion - are religiously motivated.
Non-Australian readers also mightn't realise that abortion remains criminal in most of Australia.
You have passed the point of misinformation, into outright lying. Abortions can be legally performed in Australia. 5 minutes on Google will show this (although it is because of legal precedent, not specific legislation).
This is why the entire debate - and in particular the insistence by the usual anti-abortion suspects that it wasn't about the "morality" of abortion - was ridiculous. Abortion is legal in Australia and has been for over thirty years. Depending on who you ask, up to 120,000 abortions are performed every year (unsurprisingly, without 120,000 subsequent trials). As simply another method of performing abortion, there was no justifiable reason for RU486 to be treated specially. It was nothing more than *blatant* pandering to social conservatives by the Liberal party, so they could get Harradine's support.
The private members' bill was a power grab taking advantage of anti-Catholic prejudice.
This was about as far from a "power grab" as you could get. Mainly because no "power" was "grabbed". No other drug is - or has been - subject to the arbitrary restrictions that were applied to RU486. There was no legal, medical, ethical, moral or other rational reason why RU486 should have been given special conditions in the first place. The bill did nothing more than place RU486 in exactly the same position any other drug is before it is approved for importation and use in Australia - subject to the approval of the TGA.
In summary, the short version is:
Many years ago, legislation was passed requiring the Health Minister's special approval to import and prescribe abortion drugs like RU486.
Recently, a private members bill removed this special control. These drugs are now subject to the standard approvals process all drugs face.
Anti-abortionists are trying to paint this as being "unusual", or "anti-Catholic", or somehow endowing the TGA with special powers it wouldn't normally have (or doesn't have with other drugs) when, in fact, it's just the restoration of the status quo.
Why ? Howard is one of the most well-informed and publically aware politicians in the country. Unlike, say, Beazly, who (by his own admission) often goes days without even reading a newspaper.
It is this perception of "averageness" that is generally considered the cornerstone of Howard's political success, particularly as Prime Minister.
People vote for him because they perceive him to be "just like them" - at least as much as any modern politician can be. The is in contrast to common spokepeople from other political parties, who have a habit of talking down their noses at anyone who doesn't agree with their "obviously superior" intellect and opinions.
The incompetence (Labour), irrelevance (Democrats) and plain old silliness (Greens) of the alternatives don't help much, either. The Liberals are going to be in power for a while yet - and their downfall is most likely to come because of some economic meltdown suddenly making people more interested in good Government services, because they can no longer afford stuff themselves.
Hmm. Incompetent IT Management or Government oppression...
Incompetent IT Management or Government oppression...
Incompetent IT Management or Government oppression...
Still seems like a 50/50 choice to me.
For non Australians, what *actually* happened, was that the Health Minister had veto power over a *single* drug - the abortion pill RU486 - and that veto power has been removed. The only reason the Health Minister even had such a veto was because several years earlier the Government had traded it for the support in Parliament of a Christian fundie independent MP, since at that time they needed it to have legislation passed.
The situation has *nothing* to do with "accountability" and everything to do with anti-abortion agenda of the Christian Right. Parent post should be modded "-1, Blatant Misinformation".
This is such a patently ridiculous analogy I'm amazed you even managed to come up with it...
The difference is, when you post something on the web (or usenet), you are doing so with the *knowledge and intention* that your "content" will be freely available and distributed to all.
In your example, OTOH, you are working *against* the implicit intentions of everyone whose house you break into.
Why is it bad that content made available with the knowledge - if not intention - that said content be widely and freely distributed, continue to be widely and freely distributed ?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to work with the assumption that anything on the public internet (or usenet, etc) is put there with the intention of wide scale distribution and the onus be on the "publishers" to chase up copies of their content if they later change their mind. This would be the same as happens with any other form of distribution of copyrighted material - eg: if I already own a CD and the copyright holder decides they don't want their "content" to be available anymore *at all*, as far as I know my CD doesn't suddenly become illegal.
Of course, I'm also someone who things the whole concept of "intellectual property" is pretty much broken by design...
False.
There's a rather large chunk of the world not covered by those exemptions who aren't "Arab". Like, say, China, South America and half of Africa. Not to mention a substantial proportion of those who _are_ covered by the exceptions don't have "blond hair and blue eyes".
Yes, she will - and justifiably, IMHO, because a pre-nup is demonstration of a lack of trust (in either the other party or themselves). Without trust, a relationship will not work.
While I certainly agree with your sentiments regarding the economical and statistical realities of marriage and divorce, and that men in particular should think long and hard about financial consequences before tying the knot, from a relationship perspective, if you think you need a pre-nup then you shouldn't be getting married.
Unless, of course, you're getting married for reasons independent of an emotional relationship, in which case a pre-nup is simply another aspect of the paperwork.
Works fine here, been doing it for years.
Apple aren't really trying particularly hard to stop OS X running on commodity x86 hardware. All they're really interested in doing is making it harder than just dropping an OS X CD into a Dell and running the install, because that will stop 99% of people for whom purchasing a Mac is actually a realistic consideration. More effort than that isn't really economical.
NT was initially developed on the Intel i860 and then ported to x86, MIPS and Alpha for the release of NT 3.1.
NT 3.51 added PPC support.
NT 4.0 was available for x86, Alpha, MIPS and PPC. An SPARC port was also created, but never released.
NT 5.0 (Windows 2000) dropped all but x86, although an Alpha port was mainted well into the beta testing phase.
NT 5.1 (Windows XP) and 5.2 (Windows 2003) have added x86-64 and Itanium.
The Xbox 360 (PPC) runs a derivative of NT.
I think it's pretty safe to say NT is an extremely portable OS (particularly if you're comparing commercial OSes) and that you are clueless.
I'm far from an expert (and too lazy at the moment to do any research), but how do the F16 and F18 compare in terms of combat radius ? Could the F18 having twin engines be considered essential in such a sparsely populated country ? Was the F15 even an option (cost, availability) ?
Not to mention, we live on an island - and you can't see why an aircraft with excellent naval attack capabilities might be useful ?
The US is scrapping their Tomcats, maybe we should just pick some of those up on the cheap.
My understanding is that F14s have little to no ground attack capabilities, which probably makes them a poor candidate.
Not really accurate. Windows 3.x didn't *require* its own drivers - it could access hardware via DOS drivers - but it could also load its own drivers for things like disk controllers (remember "32 bit disk access" ?).
Windows 95 functioned basically the same way, it just had more native drivers - it *could* use DOS to access the hardware, but could also use its own "native" drivers.
Windows didn't do any disk caching on its own and required the DOS cache, Smartdrive, if you wanted any.
Yes it did (it was added in Windows for Workgroups 3.11 - "32 bit file access").
SCSI and Ethernet cards needed DOS drivers loaded.
Ethernet cards didn't need DOS drivers.
Again, with things like SCSI, Windows could *either* use DOS _or_ its own "native" drivers (if they existed).
Now, a lot of this stuff is only in Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (particularly the networking and "32 bit" disk access/caching) and isn't in Windows 3.0, but certainly from 3.0 onwards, Windows was running the CPU in protected mode, doing its own hardware access, memory management, CPU scheduling, etc. All the stuff OSes do. It certainly required DOS to start, and would use DOS if it had to, but it also took over a lot of functionality from DOS if it could.
The short version is, from Windows 3.0 onwards, Windows was far closer to an OS than an "application". As it progressed, it took on more and more features of an OS, until it ended with Windows 9x
Assuming it's properly implemented, yes.
Otherwise, why should anyone believe that a registry is an improvement?
How *wouldn't* it be an improvement ?
Yeah, I've mistyped config data (in postgresql.conf), but is that worse than having a registry?
You still haven't identified any ways it would be bad, you're just saing "it's different to the way it's done now, so it sucks".
As for staying on topic, are you saying that the registry is not a security hole?
It's vastly more secure than text files.
[OT, but this sort of misinformation annoys me.]
Are we talking about windows 3.1, because that wasn't really an OS, just an application that ran on DOS.
Given Windows 3.1 did just about everything from hardware interfacing to memory management, I'd say it was pretty damn close to an "OS" (and a hell of a lot more than "just an application").
Windows 1.0, and maybe 2.0 could be put into the "just an application" baskets, but from 3.x onwards Windows was providing most all OS functionality.
Yes, they do.
So, how are you going getting that screw out with your hammer ?
Avoidable mistake. IP address typo, using spaces instead of tabs (or vice versa), not closing a set of brackets, etc, etc. The unforgiving nature of most unix apps with respect to configuration data, combined with the aforementioned fundamental problems in the unix model means the possible failures due to even a simple typo are too numerous to list, but they can range from the brutally obvious (an entire machine disappearing off the network due to a misconfigured NIC) to the frustratingly subtle (several thousand firewall rules circumvented by a mistyped "pass" rule).
Everyone with any amount of real world experience has done it - and the simple point I'm trying (and failing, it would appear) to get across here is that such mistakes are *completely* avoidable with just a tiny bit of intelligence and humility applied to configuration management by using the software to eliminate the possibility of human error whenever practical.
How often do UNIX/Linux/BSD boxes fail at all, let alone because of an error in typing a configuration file?
IME, most failures are due to operator error.
Do you have data on how often UNIX sysadmins edit configuration files, or are you just guessing?
I'm estimating based on experience. Not that it's particularly relevant to the discussion. Frequency and consequences are two independent issues.
Are there particular files that admins must frequently edit, or is the sheer number of such files?
It's the habits they encourage that are the problem.
If editing text files is such an "inferior" way to maintain computers, then why do UNIX/Linux sysadmins manage more computers than their Windows counterparts?
How is this relevant ? Are you seriously suggesting *no improvements* need to be made in the field of systems administration ?
How many person hours a day could one save by automating configuration?
The real question is how much downtime can be avoided.
Also, you're missing the point. This is not about "automating" configuration, it's about doing configuration better.
As for preventing the sysadmins from manually changing settings, maybe you (or Microsoft) should try to prevent unauthorized parties from changing the settings.
You need to try and stay on topic, rather than trying to turn every second post into "Microsoft sux0rs and everything about unix is perfect", because not only is the former aspect utterly childish, everything about unix most certainly is *NOT* perfect.
You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
Perhaps you mean mis-managed?
No.
Environments that roll out patches ad-hoc, with no scheduling or testing, are "mis-managed".
Patches should be released when they're ready. Tools should apply them once this happens.
Yes, because IT workers just love getting unexpected phone calls about things breaking.
Wating around for a specfic day of the month is silly.
Wrong. Do the word "scheduled maintenance" even exist in your vocabulary ?
Unbuntu is not the only distro to fix things on a timely basis. Gentoo does this as well.
Truly two pioneering powerhouses of the enterprise Linux world.
You don't seem to get it:
On the contrary. I do "get it".
I don't care what the vendor's patch cycle is, I want it fixed BEFORE someone exploits it. Do you think attackers wait until a specfic day of the month before breaking into your system?
If you seriously think properly managed environments do the equivalent of turning Windows Update to "Automatically Download and Install Updates" then you're either very naive or very stupid. Either way, if you're at all involved with actually following your own advice in somebody's IT infrastructure, you (and they) are in for a world of hurt one day.
Yes, it is. For the reasons I pointed out here.
All systems come with a text editor, so you can always, worst case scenario, edit it with that.
Which is quite possibly the only redeeming feature plain text configuration files have and it is, at best, a mixed blessing.
Nor am I suggesting it be changed.
If it needs to be edited by people (won't mantion any names) who can only click buttons and mark checkboxes, it's a darn sight easier to build a pretty frontend to a text file than some cryptic binary crap.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with clicking buttons or checking boxes. It has to do with good software engineering and design.
Yes. It's called relying on humans to do the right thing. Also known as prolonging the inevitable.
I cannot comprehend why are you so set against the idea *helping* sysadmins to make their lives easier, their systems more managable and their services more reliable, just so you can revel in the glory of being a 1337 h4x0r with sed, awk, grep, vi and friends.
To what extent is maintaing configuration files a "common" activity?
I would expect any unix sysadmin in a non-trivial environment does it several times a day.
To what extent can one automate the maintenance of configuration files?
A lot less now than it could be if the system was better designed.
Should system administrators be able to maintain the system manually if need be?
Yes. My point is that they should *not* be doing so in anything less than extraordinary circumstances and the system should actively prevent them from trying to do so, in anything less than extraordinary circumstances.
As for having a common API, historically, UNIX configuration data were text-based for ease of manipualtion.
And a common API wouldn't change this. Indeed, a common API and standardised maintenace tools to go along with it would substantially *improve* "ease of manipulation".
As for letting you shoot yourself in the foot, yes, that's possible. Does a Lamborghini prevent you from exceeding the speed limit?
No. But it certainly prevents you from over-revving the engine, putting it into reverse when you're doing 200km/h and hot-wiring it with a screwdriver. Not to mention things like traction control, ABS, independent braking, dynamic aerodynamic changes (well, not sure if the Lambo does this, but some Porsches certainly do), fuel injection metering, airflow metering, etc, etc, etc.
Rest assured that a modern vehicle can do a hell of a better job at just about every aspect of driving a car than you - or anyone else - possibly could and is chock full of restrictions and protective measures that directly prevent - or at the very least substantially impede - your ability to damange yourself or the vehicle.
Added to that, your analogy is ridiculous.
Would you recommend any operating systems as having a good configuration database?
Windows and OS X are a hell of a lot closer than Linux or unix. Neither are flawless, of course, but their problems are more on the implementation side than the design side.
They're not "introducing a new, proprietry UNIX", they're offering a migration path from existing unix systems to Windows.