Well, I hope you have actually had a look at the new WTS in Win2K before judging it. I'd hate to think you were slamming a system unfairly based on is predecessors.
PS: Microsoft and Citrix actually formed a partnership to get WTS to work well, and hey, it does.
The interviewer asked Huey what he thought of the whole "downloading thing", and his answer was that it was "complicated", but that his son downloads stuff all the time (that's hearsay, you Feds, you leave Huey's kid alone!) and when he finds something he likes he buys the album. So Huey didn't really have a problem with it.
That's a nice argument, but even though a small percentage of downloaders actually do this, they are definately in the minority. You can't really base a decision like this on what some people do, rather how it going to be used most of the time.
When the interviewer mentioned that he himself downloads a fair bit of music, but doesn't buy many CDs, Huey pointed out that people their age just never bought (or sold) much music anyway, relatively speaking... it's far and away a kids' market.
Applying this to software or research and development for any organisation: Does this make it ok for warez kiddies to steal software just because they weren't going to buy it? Does it make it ok for small companies to steal technical secrets from big companies, because they weren't going to research them anyway? [Hint: The answer is no.]
The article makes reference to Linux's amazing penetration into the server market, but points out that penetration into desktop has not been all it can be.
XP and NT are still kludges built on top of DOS.
If this were not the case then 9x and NT would be fundementally incompatible. However, they're not. The fact that they share commonality clearly indicates that NT most certainly has inherited some of DOS's problems.
So, because an OS can emulate features needed to run older programs that makes it run on DOS?
And, just for the fun of it, please tell me *how* "...nuclear is much cleaner [environmentally], efficient and safer then any other power source"? Come_on, either you're trolling or genuinely are a brain-dead idiot. This power generation system (the tower) has ZERO emissions, needs low maintenance and furthermore, the ecological impact (emissions) of its building will be recouped in 2-1/2 years.
Notice that I specified THREE criteria. Which is more efficient, building one nuclear power station that can supply a large city with extra power left over OR several of these 1KM high things?
Nuclear power has come a long way since the 'old days', and as for the site I quoted: It all comes down to whether you would rather believe the atomic energy commission or greenpeace. Luckily in this case, the atomic energy commission is correct, so I'll stick with their facts thanks.
Summary: Linux may not be ready for the enterprise, but NEITHER IS WINDOWS
Yet we have 50,000 Windows desktops in our Enterprise and 0 Linux desktops. [Admittedly, there are probably about 30 or so Linux servers in our research labs, although this is reasonably insignificant compared to our few thousand netware servers, few hundred Win2K servers and 'some' Mainframe stuff. [Not my area, so I couldn't say].
PS: If you want to know how to restore a corrupted/changed profile, perhaps you should have contacted your local technical support person:)
Do you have any examples of schools actually using linux enmass? [ie: not planning to, or having a trial, but actually having deployed say 100+ linux PC's?]
Most of the schools I know use a mix of 98, NT and Macs because this is where all of the educational software lives.
Things like encarta and 'maths blaster' which I used in my childhood are simply not available for linux.
Yes, but there are two different levels of 'open'.
The argument was that they should have provided detailed information on how to exploit it. I said 'no, that ideal is criminally negligent'. There is a difference between saying publically 'there is a problem with your system X' and saying 'there is a problem with your system X, and we have just put the details of how to exploit it on the internet'.
Oh come on, you think IBM is not going to fix the problem now that everyone knows about it?
Customers will be on the phones asking banks what is happening. Therefore banks will be on the phone asking IBM what is happening. And all of this is happening while the information is not generally available. [Plus you have good will from the banks, the companies and the public].
Could you honestly go on TV and say: Well, today I released the information on how to break the encryption that banks use. I hope they fix it before y'all lose your money.
Hmm.. If IBM knew about it and didn't say anything that is irresponsible.. however, mindlessly the exploit to the public is just as bad.
I think the middle ground they selected to follow [ie: informing the media that there was a problem and letting them hype it up] raised just as much public interest as releasing the details would do, while not providing exploitable information for John Q Public.
Ah, but how many of these banks know there is a problem? Should the first thing they know about it be some 'hax0r' posting the results to the internet where anyone [criminals, terrorists, etc] can get access to them?
Or should it be presented to the banks first, to give them a chance to upgrade?
Instead, just release the hole, and let the damage be done. The damage itself will be far more instructive to the company. It will also be a better influence on computer security as a whole -- damaging releases will, perhaps, induce large corporations to practice better preventative security.
It's also criminally negligent behavior, you idiot. Do you really want them being held responsible for banks and other high security installations being 'hacked'?
Or maybe you just don't want your money to be secure..
If my workstation were reimaged, it would cost me days. That's such a bad attitude.
Follow the rules then, you fool. Our company has 50K [yes, 50000] desktops, and a research lab consisting of [at a guess], several hundred.
ANYTHING nonstandard has no support offered by us, we will however rebuild the PC for a modest charge back to the parent business unit.
It simply could not be any other way, considering the ratio of PC's to support staff. [Something like 4 or 500-1].
As for the network that our research labs use, we give them a sandbox to put their NT servers, unix boxes, whatever in, and we do not support anything that lives on the other side of the firewall. [However there is a bit of redundancy because they end up with a network PC in addition to their own desktops/laptops/servers/etc.
How about all the people that rely on a computer infrastructure? Remember the US submarine a few years back that lost its navigation system because it was running NT and the system bluescreened?
Have you got a URL for this? Just on face value, I'm tempted to think you're full of crap. [ie: I can't imagine anything other then non mission critical software using anything but propriatary software]
Well, I guess they aren't teaching what communism is in schools anymore. [Besides anything that people disagree with].
Re:Using the threat to accomplish hidden purposes.
on
GOVNET In the Works
·
· Score: 1
You omit the need to acknowledge that encryption is good. The government could use government-strength, 8096-bit DSA keys on the Internet and be almost as secure as they could on their own little private network. But then someone could point out that the government is using really big encryption keys, so why shouldn't we be able to, too?
Well, the role of the NSA is not only all of that spooky spy stuff, but also to help with things like this. [ie: secure linux]. As I've said in other posts, why should we be using the government as a testing bed for encryption.
You lose a lot. First, the government is no longer supporting the public network.
No one ever said that the government was going to stop supporting the internet, I am sure they will still have their public web pages. I think that the days where the government needed to subsidise the internet are long gone.
The Internet MUST be made secure. We need to accomplish that, not just allow it to be insecure and then pay for a lot of separate networks. It would be great to have the government help everyone else accomplish security.
I think that is part of the NSA's role, I don't know how effective they are at doing it, but lets let the NSA do it, rather then using important government information as a 'test ground'.
Second, having a separate network creates a sense of separateness among government employees. There is too much of that already.
That's a bit of a stretch, many many companies use separate intranets already. They don't feel separate.
Remember, a separate network means that employees no longer have access to the Internet. They can't join in with the discussion on Slashdot, for example. They can't see what people are saying. They can't do research on other ways of achieving security. They can't check their e-mail. A democracy should try to accomplish security, but not separateness.
I am sure there will still be facilities for internet access, they will just be much more controlled then currently.
Third, having a completely separate network is EXPENSIVE. We lose the right to spend our money on something else.
Exactly what price can you put on good security?
There are cheaper ways of accomplishing security.
There are cheap ways to design cars too, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to drive the 'safest' car available.
Slashdot Mirror
PS: Microsoft and Citrix actually formed a partnership to get WTS to work well, and hey, it does.
That's a nice argument, but even though a small percentage of downloaders actually do this, they are definately in the minority. You can't really base a decision like this on what some people do, rather how it going to be used most of the time.
When the interviewer mentioned that he himself downloads a fair bit of music, but doesn't buy many CDs, Huey pointed out that people their age just never bought (or sold) much music anyway, relatively speaking... it's far and away a kids' market.
Applying this to software or research and development for any organisation: Does this make it ok for warez kiddies to steal software just because they weren't going to buy it? Does it make it ok for small companies to steal technical secrets from big companies, because they weren't going to research them anyway? [Hint: The answer is no.]
The article makes reference to Linux's amazing penetration into the server market, but points out that penetration into desktop has not been all it can be.
[This is probably true.]
Has anyone told the WINE developers?
Notice that I specified THREE criteria. Which is more efficient, building one nuclear power station that can supply a large city with extra power left over OR several of these 1KM high things?
Nuclear power has come a long way since the 'old days', and as for the site I quoted: It all comes down to whether you would rather believe the atomic energy commission or greenpeace. Luckily in this case, the atomic energy commission is correct, so I'll stick with their facts thanks.
Was it the opinion that we use to much power and should cut down? [which I disagree with, but that's irrelevant]
Or was it the pro-nuclear stance? [It is a fact that nuclear power is one of the cleanest, safest, most efficient energy sources out there]
Remember moderators, just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a troll.
Of course, you will always have people parroting the tripe that the greens sprout about it being 'dangerous.'.
More information at:http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=2&catid=118&U pFront=true
While this site is a bit more US centric then I would like, it does provide a wealth of information on nuclear energy.
PS: If you want to know how to restore a corrupted/changed profile, perhaps you should have contacted your local technical support person :)
Do you have any examples of schools actually using linux enmass? [ie: not planning to, or having a trial, but actually having deployed say 100+ linux PC's?]
Most of the schools I know use a mix of 98, NT and Macs because this is where all of the educational software lives.
Things like encarta and 'maths blaster' which I used in my childhood are simply not available for linux.
Umm.. 1991 is 10 years ago, which is a long time in computer terms.
AHOY!
But what if the car doesn't HAVE a seatbelt?
Yes, but there are two different levels of 'open'. The argument was that they should have provided detailed information on how to exploit it. I said 'no, that ideal is criminally negligent'. There is a difference between saying publically 'there is a problem with your system X' and saying 'there is a problem with your system X, and we have just put the details of how to exploit it on the internet'.
Customers will be on the phones asking banks what is happening. Therefore banks will be on the phone asking IBM what is happening. And all of this is happening while the information is not generally available. [Plus you have good will from the banks, the companies and the public].
Could you honestly go on TV and say: Well, today I released the information on how to break the encryption that banks use. I hope they fix it before y'all lose your money.
Sure, it's a small number, but even one is too many.
I think the middle ground they selected to follow [ie: informing the media that there was a problem and letting them hype it up] raised just as much public interest as releasing the details would do, while not providing exploitable information for John Q Public.
Or should it be presented to the banks first, to give them a chance to upgrade?
It's also criminally negligent behavior, you idiot. Do you really want them being held responsible for banks and other high security installations being 'hacked'?
Or maybe you just don't want your money to be secure..
Follow the rules then, you fool. Our company has 50K [yes, 50000] desktops, and a research lab consisting of [at a guess], several hundred.
ANYTHING nonstandard has no support offered by us, we will however rebuild the PC for a modest charge back to the parent business unit.
It simply could not be any other way, considering the ratio of PC's to support staff. [Something like 4 or 500-1].
As for the network that our research labs use, we give them a sandbox to put their NT servers, unix boxes, whatever in, and we do not support anything that lives on the other side of the firewall. [However there is a bit of redundancy because they end up with a network PC in addition to their own desktops/laptops/servers/etc.
Have you got a URL for this? Just on face value, I'm tempted to think you're full of crap. [ie: I can't imagine anything other then non mission critical software using anything but propriatary software]
Wrong, as previously stated, one type is far more common and far less deadly then the other, and is being played up by the media.
Yes, companies really do this.
Well, I guess they aren't teaching what communism is in schools anymore. [Besides anything that people disagree with].
Well, the role of the NSA is not only all of that spooky spy stuff, but also to help with things like this. [ie: secure linux]. As I've said in other posts, why should we be using the government as a testing bed for encryption.
No one ever said that the government was going to stop supporting the internet, I am sure they will still have their public web pages. I think that the days where the government needed to subsidise the internet are long gone.
The Internet MUST be made secure. We need to accomplish that, not just allow it to be insecure and then pay for a lot of separate networks. It would be great to have the government help everyone else accomplish security.
I think that is part of the NSA's role, I don't know how effective they are at doing it, but lets let the NSA do it, rather then using important government information as a 'test ground'.
Second, having a separate network creates a sense of separateness among government employees. There is too much of that already.
That's a bit of a stretch, many many companies use separate intranets already. They don't feel separate.
Remember, a separate network means that employees no longer have access to the Internet. They can't join in with the discussion on Slashdot, for example. They can't see what people are saying. They can't do research on other ways of achieving security. They can't check their e-mail. A democracy should try to accomplish security, but not separateness.
I am sure there will still be facilities for internet access, they will just be much more controlled then currently.
Third, having a completely separate network is EXPENSIVE. We lose the right to spend our money on something else.
Exactly what price can you put on good security?
There are cheaper ways of accomplishing security.
There are cheap ways to design cars too, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to drive the 'safest' car available.