I really think that many at large companies use default installs of Office as job security.
I have done infosec in both a large funding-limited US government agency, and a well-funded network-savvy corporation. I'd like to suggest different reason lax security exists: funding.
In both cases, I saw that the IT support infrastructure (sysadmins, architects, desktop support, etc) were underfunded compared to the amount of new tasks and upkeep they were presented. These folks worked tirelessly just to keep their heads above the workflow. Security often added additional effort / steps / work to their already overwhelming load.
In the Gov't environment, this meant security practices were often ignored. Security was considered an additional effort, and the IT groups were not funded for it. Furthermore, there were few security experts (again - they were not funded for and rarely sought out). Often IT workers were oblivious to security practices to begin with.
In the well-funded corporate environment, implementing security practices involves a great deal of fighting and compromise. There was a well-funded infosec group who championed good security practices. However, the actual admin groups (who were otherwise excellent admins) were rarely knowledgable (or focused) on security issues. Their focus was simply to get things working. Thus, sometimes good security practices went in to place... sometimes security practices were compromised away... sometimes security practices were completely ignored.
It might be worth making another observation. I used to believe good security practices are just a part of being a good admin. I've changed my mind. It is a sign of an exceptional admin. A good unserstanding of infosec issues requires additional training and understanding that goes beyond the usual realm of administration. Infosec is a specialized skill. As such, those with knowledgeable admins should count themselves lucky. Most organizations will need to hire (or contract) infosec specialists who's focus is on secure (and workable - that's sometimes a tough tradeoff) implementations.
This reminds me of an interesting analysis of Saddam's strategy during the Gulf War by a USAF Col. He was specifically interested in the air war. Iraq's air force was criticized for fleeing to Iran where it was captured by the Iranians. The Col. pointed out that this air force was battle hardened - it had faced Isreal and Iran in years of conflict. If it fled, there was a reason.
His belief was that Saddam had planned to sacrifice his people. Allow carpet bombing and large scale civilian casualties. Use this as propoganda to start a genuine Jihad. Once Iran joined this Jihad, Saddam would have his aircraft back.
Of course - the plan was foiled. US and Allied smart weapons were more efficient than even the US had hoped. Civilian casualties were greatly minimalized. Saddam had little propoganda for raising allies to his cause.
It would seem that within Islamic power politics, becoming the leader of a world-wide Jihad is the Holy Grail of extreemist leaders.
They are poor (or unproven) fighters, but have been excellent at gathering popular support. The Taleban didn't fight to gain power, they convinced people that they would bring peace.
Excellent point.
I had believed that their raise to power had involved public support, but also some degree of military action. I may be wrong on that point. However, they have also faced military action in for form of civil war. And still hold power. I believe that would show that they have, to a point, already proven themselves to be competant fighters.
However, they also have a horrid track record as civil leaders. They may have gained popular support to take control of the Afghanistan government. But living conditions in Afghanistan has not improved under their guidance. Reports from relief agencies, ex-patriots, and news agencies portray an Afghanistan that is in civil disarray and a government who simply do not know how to form the most basic infrastructure to handle these dire conditions. And there are reports suggesting that the Taliban has lost its popularity (if not its power).
I don't think our leaders had to tell us that the country was attacked. The jumbo jets flying into the skyscrapers did that just fine.
We all witnessed the jets flying in to buildings.
But who witnessed the banners reading "Al'Quida sponsored"? Or maybe it was the public statements from the terrorist pilots just before impact? Or maybe even a statement from Bin Laden claiming responcibility?
We are still relying on our government leadership to tell us who did the act. That it was an attack that constituted an "act of war" (note: terrorist activities have always been considered ciminal acts up to now - there's a big difference between war (military) and criminal (civil) acts).
I personally have fairly high confidence in our current leadership. But it is our duty (for both civil and military citizens - and there IS a difference) to be critical of our leadership. It is possible to be both supportive and critical at the same time.
One of the real reaons the Soviets failed was because they were waging an all-out war to subdue Afghanistan.
It goes a step further than that. The Soviets were trying to impose an unpopular government on the Afghanistan people. Subduing the populas was just a part of this process.
There are a lot of indicators that suggest the Taliban is not a popular governing body. They were a group of young fundamentalist revolutionaries, sponsored by Pakistan, who seized power from the Afghanistan government that was in place after the Soviets. They are good fighters - but poor civil leaders. Afghanistan is in ruins. Civil war hounds the Taliban. And there are further indications that some of the Taliban's own supporters will turn on them if they feel that they won't be fighting the Taliban alone.
The US' goals, task, and environment in which it must work in is far different than that of the Soviet Union.
Nowadays, with a net/LAN gaming café on every corner it is much easier just going there instead...
The two attempts at a local net cafe in my area failed. They closed their doors and are gone. Perhapse they didn't understand the market. Or maybe the economics are different in this area. (shrug).
I can't offer numbers (maybe someone else can), but I CAN offer a direction to look. Cisco Systems.
Cisco officially supports 3 desktop OS - Win2k, Solaris, and their own Linux distro. "Unsupported" installs of Linux are fairly common and, of course, Linux appears in the infrastructure (such as Cisco's infamous Linux-based printing architecture).
Of course, this doesn't mean Linux is overrunning Windows on the desktop at Cisco. Cisco allows its employees to select the tools they need to do their job and that includes their preferred OS. Windows is still very common on laptops and most of the less technically driven departments. Within the technical ranks, Solaris shows fairly strongly.
Linux gets good competition. But its relatively new as a supported option at Cisco. It made some consicerable headway as it entered the Cisco workplace through new aquisitions. And the linux-users list was showing more and more engineers who liked taking their own build environment with them on the road.
And how are the web site owners supposed to pay for the bandwidth you're using?
I like to see my favorite sites do well. If that comes at the cost of a few extra K on a banner add, I'm all for it. Great. Advertisers get their "message" out (heck, sometimes I'm even interested in it). Sites get to continue operations. I get content. Everybody wins.
But there's a limit to what I'm willing to pay. Flash adds. Stupid java tricks. Exceptionly flashy or large animated gifs (a rare annoyance, thankfully). Tracking. These advertising methods get filtered.
I blame it all on DoubleClick. The emphasis on click-throughs and customer tracking / targeting seems to have come from their camp. It set an ugly precedence. Online advertising somehow now fails if it doesn't create immediate response (click-throughs) or is unable to provide targeted customer data; a standard no other advertising medium is expected to meet.
Everyone looses under this system. The advertiser, who's messages isn't seen. The end user who either has to undergo extraordinary effort to filter out offensive advertisements, or otherwise deal with intrusive ads. And the webmaster who's site looses income depending on how many of their users choose to make the effort to protect their personal rights.
I can only imagine what the Washington Post and their reporter had waiting for them in their collective Inbox. And from what I've seen online (and not just Slashdot), I'm sure Phil is completely correct in saying that it was undeserved. I feel bad that Phil should have to feel ashamed over the incident.
But...
The Washington Post DOES deserve critism. Phil is very polite to assure that there were good intentions and that facts were presented properly. Unfortunately, good intentions aren't always enough and the facts reported were not entirely correct.
The issue at hand is the reported guilt that Phil felt. By his own account, he had gone to great lengths to ensure that mistake was not made. And yet the mistake was made and Phil's apparent guilt was reported as fact. Why? Because someone at The Post drew their own incorrect conclusion.
I'm all for reporters putting elements togeather to ferret out the truth of a story. Its part of what makes a good investigative reporter. However, in this case someone put 2 and 2 togeather, got 5... and went ahead with it without any fact checking. Surely Phil wouldn't have been THAT hard to contact for a followup (be it in person, voice, or email).
The Washington Post is a professional, world-class organization. Their reporters are professionals with a great deal of power to direct the attention and impressions of issues held by average citizens. Some of which happen to be in our law enforcement agencies, Congress, and other positions of power and policy. Because of this, the Post and its reporters should be held to a high standard.
The Washington Post failed to meet this standard. They should feel ashamed and are entirely worthy of harsh critism.
No reason, except for the minor problem of the lack of an actual attack that works on Apache.
That's basically my point. Its not an issue of what platform IIS or Apache is running on. The issue is that IIS has the vulnerabilities that make it a target. If Apache was also just as vulnerable, it could (and would) be attacked in just the same manner as IIS is.
IIS is attacked because it runs on a platform that is more popular in general.
I think you're taking an easy route by trying to link the two. Lets split the server from the platform.
The windows platform is very popular. Most common desktop by far; sheer numbers makes it a target. Add in that the average user has little IT experience and (either because of design or end user maintenance... or both) that a lot of these machines will be full of holes... great target.
Lets say its not IIS that's under scrutiny but Apache. Very popular. Lots of holes. And a large percentage of the user base tends not to patch holes as they're announced. Great target.
Just because Apache tends to be ran on non-Windows hosts does not mean we can't put them togeather. sadmind did just that. It spread on Solaris systems to attack and deface IIS servers. No reason we can't launch a new Nimda-a-like that propogates amoung windows machines and attackes Apache (on whaterver OS its sitting on) hosts.
But, of course, that's not what is going on. IIS is being attacked because of the virtues of IIS, not because its usually sitting on Windows hosts.
After re-reading my post, I'd like to clarify a point. I don't think its LinuxDA's intent to sell cheap Palms by circumventing PalmOS licensing. And I didn't agree with Microsoft's statement.
There's some truth in the idea. Certainly, in both cases someone is going to have the grand idea and pirate the OS (Windows and Palm). However, it doesn't remove that in all likelyhood people will put this hardware to legal use - running Linux (or whatnot).
I just find it kind of interesting to see a simularity between PDA and desktop PC platforms in a very unlikely area.
Since the last article on this device, I've been pondering something simular to the submitted question:
"They claim it is Palm compatible, but it won't run palm apps - so what 'Palm compatible' means is anyone's guess."
The only thing I can think of is "Hey, don't like our Linux distro? No problem! Grab a PalmOS image and load it up! Cheap PalmIIIs!" Illegal as they may be.
Of course, I'm a little hesitant to push that point so much. Sounds far too much like not-so-distant claims from Microsoft that if a whitebox shop didn't pay for a Windows license, they were obviously intending to pirate Microsoft products.
Nah, but playing Jane's Longbow/Longbow2, F-15, 688 Hunter/Killer will. And Fleet Action is a wonderful primer on fleet tactics....
Let's call this the Iron Eagle theory. Its the theory that given enough training on a simulator, an individual is ready for the real thing.
First off, we're giving these simulation games a lot more credit that I believe they deserve. Computer simulations are amazing - and pack quite a bit of detail. But having worked on some of the systems portrayed in these games (and scammed quite a bit of time in real training simulators) - they tend to lack distinct details from the real thing. That's not to say these games aren't very cool. But they're not a perfect simulation either.
But even if they were exact simulations, they'd still only provide one aspect of the training required. First off, there's nothing like the real thing. The US Military understands this, which explains why soldiers still train in the field with MILES gear and airmen fly training sorties instead of spending time in a simulator cockpit. And even then, the systems pale in comparison to real combat experience.
And even once one is intimately familiar with the weapons system assigned, there is another level to being a member of the Armed Services. We've just touched on it with field training and combat experience - knowing how situations feel and being familiar enough with them to act. Being able to interact with other service members effectively (even if you've barely met). The ability to handle pressure. Knowing what makes up a lawful order and when one is bound to disobey an unlawful order. Knowing the common heritage, traditions, and symbols that bind all this (and more) togeather.
Technology changes the face of the battlefield and the weapons deployed on it. It might require shifts in tactics, training, and specific skills. But there is still a requirement for the kind of grit that made up WWII heros. Don't expect to see that replaced by twitch-gamers anytime soon.
Does this mean nerds adept at playing video games and computer flight simulators will be operating the fighter jets from remote controls in the future, instead of the kinds of brave, tough men who fought conventional wars in the past?
During the 80s there was a Black Helicopter Theory claiming that the US Gov't were specifically supporting aspects of the arcade industry. The intent was to raise a generation able (training hand/eye coordination, etc) and willing to fight tommrows battles. This was particularly needed due to previous generation's docile, pacifist nature.
The US Army being involved with a special edition of the ground-breaking arcade game Battlezone probably just added to the story.
I think its a rediculous idea. Sure, having generations comfortable and able to instinctively absorb technology would provide the raw material to train soldiers adept with new weapons systems. But being able to defeat the Boss on Level 32 of Super Mario Bros, or even surviving some period of time in Battlezone, doesn't make a soldier.
What I am crying for actually is a larger display.
...
But what keeps them away from enlarging the display into the "graffiti" write zone? This gives roughly 1/3 more display area, for easier data display and email reading and and and...
You might be interested in this review of a HandEra (formerly TRG) 330. Its got exactly what you're looking for.
Umm, I wonder how many sales they'll get when you can download it for free. (Not that they aren't idiots for "accidentally" using GPL code in the first place.)
Shh. Don't tell Dell; their business model is a sham. There's no way they could possibly be successful.
I can download Windows for free, though I have to admit - legality becomes an issue. If you want, we'll stick with downloading a copy of Linux. Though... piracy is a common "option" to many.
That leaves me with... software. No box. So I'll have to build my own whitebox. There's nothing Dell offers that I can't get, or at least find a suitable equivilent to, on my own.
So now I have my own Dell competitor. A product that might even be better than anything they offered. Perhapse cheaper depending on what options I went with.
Assuming I have the time and knowledge to put this all togeather.
The same goes for an embeded linux server product.
Win2000, although so much aclaimed, is not more stable than WinNT 4.0 + SP3. Oh, sure, you get Microsoft Active Directory, but noone is using it. Basically, people could have stayed with WinNT, but MS forces the industry to upgrade.
Win2K has made a great home OS. Its much more stable than the Win98 install it replaced, and my user base:) claims that some of their old games actually run faster. Tech support calls are way down. Security is much more sane. Overall, a great switch.
I was never under the impression that WinNT 4.0 made that great of a workstation (or at least, a home machine - having said that, win2k has performed admirably on my laptop too).
How come I have better uptime on W2K than Linux and Solaris combined?
I'd like to know what you're doing with your two *nix machines. But I have to agree - my Win2K workstation has been able to match uptimes to my Linux and Solaris workstations.
But there's an important distinction. This isn't a matter of Windows overtaking other technologies. This is a case of Windows finally catching up to where other's have been for years.
And then an informed reader would point out that the driver was provided by the manufactorer, not Microsoft. Thus, Microsoft itself would have little direct involvement in this case.
A more reasonable Open Source advocate might chip in that an open source driver would provide a faster path to hunting down and fixing the problem (Source is available for this driver, though I don't know what the license is - so that point may or may not be tested in this case).
There is mindless zealotry all over the tech industry, media, and public forumns. It goes far beyond Slashdot and Linux. Please try to refrain from adding to it.
Not hard, considering they POST it in the announcement that's linked to in the Slashdot story. They even provide a nice little link.
Granted, reading isn't a primary skill for some. And others just aren't familiar with URLs or the whole "this is a link, and you can click on it" concept.
What about sendmail (or many others) instead of Exchange server, and KMail instead of the MS email client?
Exchange does something other mail servers don't do. And it does it well.
I was going to say "groupware". But that's a bit of a misnomer. It does have various groupware functionality - but its specifically scheduling that it does well. Other groupware aspects are almost a brief afterthought.
Sure - there are other scheduling competitors out there. But I watched Cisco Systems gravitate towards Exchange despite their heavy investment in a Unix mail infrastructure and the problems a diverse desktop OS user base causes for functionality with Microsoft products (Cisco endorses Win2k, Solaris, and Linux as supported desktop options for their employees).
Its a shame that Exchange forces one to pick up all the usual MS bagage along with an otherwise top tier product.
Slashdot Mirror
I have done infosec in both a large funding-limited US government agency, and a well-funded network-savvy corporation. I'd like to suggest different reason lax security exists: funding.
In both cases, I saw that the IT support infrastructure (sysadmins, architects, desktop support, etc) were underfunded compared to the amount of new tasks and upkeep they were presented. These folks worked tirelessly just to keep their heads above the workflow. Security often added additional effort / steps / work to their already overwhelming load.
In the Gov't environment, this meant security practices were often ignored. Security was considered an additional effort, and the IT groups were not funded for it. Furthermore, there were few security experts (again - they were not funded for and rarely sought out). Often IT workers were oblivious to security practices to begin with.
In the well-funded corporate environment, implementing security practices involves a great deal of fighting and compromise. There was a well-funded infosec group who championed good security practices. However, the actual admin groups (who were otherwise excellent admins) were rarely knowledgable (or focused) on security issues. Their focus was simply to get things working. Thus, sometimes good security practices went in to place... sometimes security practices were compromised away... sometimes security practices were completely ignored.
It might be worth making another observation. I used to believe good security practices are just a part of being a good admin. I've changed my mind. It is a sign of an exceptional admin. A good unserstanding of infosec issues requires additional training and understanding that goes beyond the usual realm of administration. Infosec is a specialized skill. As such, those with knowledgeable admins should count themselves lucky. Most organizations will need to hire (or contract) infosec specialists who's focus is on secure (and workable - that's sometimes a tough tradeoff) implementations.
His belief was that Saddam had planned to sacrifice his people. Allow carpet bombing and large scale civilian casualties. Use this as propoganda to start a genuine Jihad. Once Iran joined this Jihad, Saddam would have his aircraft back.
Of course - the plan was foiled. US and Allied smart weapons were more efficient than even the US had hoped. Civilian casualties were greatly minimalized. Saddam had little propoganda for raising allies to his cause.
It would seem that within Islamic power politics, becoming the leader of a world-wide Jihad is the Holy Grail of extreemist leaders.
I had believed that their raise to power had involved public support, but also some degree of military action. I may be wrong on that point. However, they have also faced military action in for form of civil war. And still hold power. I believe that would show that they have, to a point, already proven themselves to be competant fighters.
However, they also have a horrid track record as civil leaders. They may have gained popular support to take control of the Afghanistan government. But living conditions in Afghanistan has not improved under their guidance. Reports from relief agencies, ex-patriots, and news agencies portray an Afghanistan that is in civil disarray and a government who simply do not know how to form the most basic infrastructure to handle these dire conditions. And there are reports suggesting that the Taliban has lost its popularity (if not its power).
We all witnessed the jets flying in to buildings.
But who witnessed the banners reading "Al'Quida sponsored"? Or maybe it was the public statements from the terrorist pilots just before impact? Or maybe even a statement from Bin Laden claiming responcibility?
We are still relying on our government leadership to tell us who did the act. That it was an attack that constituted an "act of war" (note: terrorist activities have always been considered ciminal acts up to now - there's a big difference between war (military) and criminal (civil) acts).
I personally have fairly high confidence in our current leadership. But it is our duty (for both civil and military citizens - and there IS a difference) to be critical of our leadership. It is possible to be both supportive and critical at the same time.
It goes a step further than that. The Soviets were trying to impose an unpopular government on the Afghanistan people. Subduing the populas was just a part of this process.
There are a lot of indicators that suggest the Taliban is not a popular governing body. They were a group of young fundamentalist revolutionaries, sponsored by Pakistan, who seized power from the Afghanistan government that was in place after the Soviets. They are good fighters - but poor civil leaders. Afghanistan is in ruins. Civil war hounds the Taliban. And there are further indications that some of the Taliban's own supporters will turn on them if they feel that they won't be fighting the Taliban alone.
The US' goals, task, and environment in which it must work in is far different than that of the Soviet Union.
The two attempts at a local net cafe in my area failed. They closed their doors and are gone. Perhapse they didn't understand the market. Or maybe the economics are different in this area. (shrug).
Of course, this doesn't mean Linux is overrunning Windows on the desktop at Cisco. Cisco allows its employees to select the tools they need to do their job and that includes their preferred OS. Windows is still very common on laptops and most of the less technically driven departments. Within the technical ranks, Solaris shows fairly strongly.
Linux gets good competition. But its relatively new as a supported option at Cisco. It made some consicerable headway as it entered the Cisco workplace through new aquisitions. And the linux-users list was showing more and more engineers who liked taking their own build environment with them on the road.
I like to see my favorite sites do well. If that comes at the cost of a few extra K on a banner add, I'm all for it. Great. Advertisers get their "message" out (heck, sometimes I'm even interested in it). Sites get to continue operations. I get content. Everybody wins.
But there's a limit to what I'm willing to pay. Flash adds. Stupid java tricks. Exceptionly flashy or large animated gifs (a rare annoyance, thankfully). Tracking. These advertising methods get filtered.
I blame it all on DoubleClick. The emphasis on click-throughs and customer tracking / targeting seems to have come from their camp. It set an ugly precedence. Online advertising somehow now fails if it doesn't create immediate response (click-throughs) or is unable to provide targeted customer data; a standard no other advertising medium is expected to meet.
Everyone looses under this system. The advertiser, who's messages isn't seen. The end user who either has to undergo extraordinary effort to filter out offensive advertisements, or otherwise deal with intrusive ads. And the webmaster who's site looses income depending on how many of their users choose to make the effort to protect their personal rights.
So how long have you held a position at the Washington Post. ;)
But...
The Washington Post DOES deserve critism. Phil is very polite to assure that there were good intentions and that facts were presented properly. Unfortunately, good intentions aren't always enough and the facts reported were not entirely correct.
The issue at hand is the reported guilt that Phil felt. By his own account, he had gone to great lengths to ensure that mistake was not made. And yet the mistake was made and Phil's apparent guilt was reported as fact. Why? Because someone at The Post drew their own incorrect conclusion.
I'm all for reporters putting elements togeather to ferret out the truth of a story. Its part of what makes a good investigative reporter. However, in this case someone put 2 and 2 togeather, got 5... and went ahead with it without any fact checking. Surely Phil wouldn't have been THAT hard to contact for a followup (be it in person, voice, or email).
The Washington Post is a professional, world-class organization. Their reporters are professionals with a great deal of power to direct the attention and impressions of issues held by average citizens. Some of which happen to be in our law enforcement agencies, Congress, and other positions of power and policy. Because of this, the Post and its reporters should be held to a high standard.
The Washington Post failed to meet this standard. They should feel ashamed and are entirely worthy of harsh critism.
Even if they're not deserving of hate mail.
Well... they probably burnt his ship.
"He wants to know where his ship is."
"Tell him it was destroyed."
That's basically my point. Its not an issue of what platform IIS or Apache is running on. The issue is that IIS has the vulnerabilities that make it a target. If Apache was also just as vulnerable, it could (and would) be attacked in just the same manner as IIS is.
The windows platform is very popular. Most common desktop by far; sheer numbers makes it a target. Add in that the average user has little IT experience and (either because of design or end user maintenance... or both) that a lot of these machines will be full of holes... great target.
Lets say its not IIS that's under scrutiny but Apache. Very popular. Lots of holes. And a large percentage of the user base tends not to patch holes as they're announced. Great target.
Just because Apache tends to be ran on non-Windows hosts does not mean we can't put them togeather. sadmind did just that. It spread on Solaris systems to attack and deface IIS servers. No reason we can't launch a new Nimda-a-like that propogates amoung windows machines and attackes Apache (on whaterver OS its sitting on) hosts.
But, of course, that's not what is going on. IIS is being attacked because of the virtues of IIS, not because its usually sitting on Windows hosts.
There's some truth in the idea. Certainly, in both cases someone is going to have the grand idea and pirate the OS (Windows and Palm). However, it doesn't remove that in all likelyhood people will put this hardware to legal use - running Linux (or whatnot).
I just find it kind of interesting to see a simularity between PDA and desktop PC platforms in a very unlikely area.
Of course, I'm a little hesitant to push that point so much. Sounds far too much like not-so-distant claims from Microsoft that if a whitebox shop didn't pay for a Windows license, they were obviously intending to pirate Microsoft products.
Let's call this the Iron Eagle theory. Its the theory that given enough training on a simulator, an individual is ready for the real thing.
First off, we're giving these simulation games a lot more credit that I believe they deserve. Computer simulations are amazing - and pack quite a bit of detail. But having worked on some of the systems portrayed in these games (and scammed quite a bit of time in real training simulators) - they tend to lack distinct details from the real thing. That's not to say these games aren't very cool. But they're not a perfect simulation either.
But even if they were exact simulations, they'd still only provide one aspect of the training required. First off, there's nothing like the real thing. The US Military understands this, which explains why soldiers still train in the field with MILES gear and airmen fly training sorties instead of spending time in a simulator cockpit. And even then, the systems pale in comparison to real combat experience.
And even once one is intimately familiar with the weapons system assigned, there is another level to being a member of the Armed Services. We've just touched on it with field training and combat experience - knowing how situations feel and being familiar enough with them to act. Being able to interact with other service members effectively (even if you've barely met). The ability to handle pressure. Knowing what makes up a lawful order and when one is bound to disobey an unlawful order. Knowing the common heritage, traditions, and symbols that bind all this (and more) togeather.
Technology changes the face of the battlefield and the weapons deployed on it. It might require shifts in tactics, training, and specific skills. But there is still a requirement for the kind of grit that made up WWII heros. Don't expect to see that replaced by twitch-gamers anytime soon.
During the 80s there was a Black Helicopter Theory claiming that the US Gov't were specifically supporting aspects of the arcade industry. The intent was to raise a generation able (training hand/eye coordination, etc) and willing to fight tommrows battles. This was particularly needed due to previous generation's docile, pacifist nature.
The US Army being involved with a special edition of the ground-breaking arcade game Battlezone probably just added to the story.
I think its a rediculous idea. Sure, having generations comfortable and able to instinctively absorb technology would provide the raw material to train soldiers adept with new weapons systems. But being able to defeat the Boss on Level 32 of Super Mario Bros, or even surviving some period of time in Battlezone, doesn't make a soldier.
Shh. Don't tell Dell; their business model is a sham. There's no way they could possibly be successful.
I can download Windows for free, though I have to admit - legality becomes an issue. If you want, we'll stick with downloading a copy of Linux. Though... piracy is a common "option" to many.
That leaves me with... software. No box. So I'll have to build my own whitebox. There's nothing Dell offers that I can't get, or at least find a suitable equivilent to, on my own.
So now I have my own Dell competitor. A product that might even be better than anything they offered. Perhapse cheaper depending on what options I went with.
Assuming I have the time and knowledge to put this all togeather.
The same goes for an embeded linux server product.
Nope - I've seen others lament over Win2K crashes. But I just haven't seen it. Its behaved admirably under my watch.
I prefer Linux - I spend most of my day with a Linux desktop. But when I need to use Windows, Win2K is my choice.
Win2K has made a great home OS. Its much more stable than the Win98 install it replaced, and my user base
I was never under the impression that WinNT 4.0 made that great of a workstation (or at least, a home machine - having said that, win2k has performed admirably on my laptop too).
I'd like to know what you're doing with your two *nix machines. But I have to agree - my Win2K workstation has been able to match uptimes to my Linux and Solaris workstations.
But there's an important distinction. This isn't a matter of Windows overtaking other technologies. This is a case of Windows finally catching up to where other's have been for years.
And its about time.
Oh please.
And then an informed reader would point out that the driver was provided by the manufactorer, not Microsoft. Thus, Microsoft itself would have little direct involvement in this case.
A more reasonable Open Source advocate might chip in that an open source driver would provide a faster path to hunting down and fixing the problem (Source is available for this driver, though I don't know what the license is - so that point may or may not be tested in this case).
There is mindless zealotry all over the tech industry, media, and public forumns. It goes far beyond Slashdot and Linux. Please try to refrain from adding to it.
Granted, reading isn't a primary skill for some. And others just aren't familiar with URLs or the whole "this is a link, and you can click on it" concept.
Exchange does something other mail servers don't do. And it does it well.
I was going to say "groupware". But that's a bit of a misnomer. It does have various groupware functionality - but its specifically scheduling that it does well. Other groupware aspects are almost a brief afterthought.
Sure - there are other scheduling competitors out there. But I watched Cisco Systems gravitate towards Exchange despite their heavy investment in a Unix mail infrastructure and the problems a diverse desktop OS user base causes for functionality with Microsoft products (Cisco endorses Win2k, Solaris, and Linux as supported desktop options for their employees).
Its a shame that Exchange forces one to pick up all the usual MS bagage along with an otherwise top tier product.