You really think this Mac Zealot guy has a legitimate interest in security? Har. Since when is arguing with ZDNET about Macs legitimate academic anything?
Yes, if you're going to be onsite for any length of time. But if you're just visiting for a meeting, the chance of having network print access is just about zero in my experience. (I'm not saying it's an extremely common usecase.. I've maybe done it twice in 10 years. But IBM designed the T-series to be the ultimate roadwarrior laptop, and I presume they knew what they were doing.)
> Aye I'm not sure why the T42 has a parallel port.
Walk into the average office building and you'll see a bunch of HP departmental laser printers that all have parallel ports (and very few if any have USB). If you think of the on-site salesman or consultant, they want to be able to print without worrying about how to get on someone's network.
I've also wondered how an EDU employee can get away with spending so much time on blatent Apple advocacy activitites. (And not just for IT matters either -- daveschroeder spends a lot of time "defending" Apple's policies about iPods and iTMS.)
Presumably his position must be funded by Apple or rewarded by Apple somehow, and "University of Wisconsin Mac Zealot" is actually in his job description. (Sure, Apple rewards loyal sysadmins with nice freebies like flat panels and iPods, but daveschroeder's activities are way to blatent for that sort of under-the-table stuff.)
The UW Appropriate Use Policy specifically disallows the use of "University IT resources to represent the interests of any non-University group or organization" (Apple), so presumably this must be sanctioned by his higher-ups.
I thought about emailing the UW CIO to ask, but I've got better things to do.
Also of note is that Mac OSX currently has an a user base of over 10 million machines. So the argument that it's too small a target is ridiculous.
How many of these are server machines running Apache and OpenSSH? Only a tiny percentage -- OS X Server has something like a 0.2% marketshare last I heard.
As per usual, Mac users are overly fixated about their platform's reputation. OS X is a Unix (especially on the server) -- and Unix's reputation is hardly complete airtight security. There's a ton of Unix hacking knowhow out there, which a less competant OS X administrator could fall victim to.
The bottomline is that Operating Systems aren't secure, configurations are secure. So unless there's some horrible flaw found in the default install, I wouldn't get so worked up about how this reflects on your beloved platform.
SSH and everything else is off by default and the average user won't enable them, probably won't even know how to enable them.
Right. So what's the point in enabling them for this "security challenge"? If the goal is to enulate a server environment, why not a OS X Server machine? A desktop Mac is far more likely to have SMB and AFP turned on than SSH -- why aren't they enabled?
Isn't front-line tech support the monkeys who read scripts and esclate you to the people who actually know what they're talking about?
Anyway, you're wrong. MS Office has never had a preloader and has never run in the background. The old "startup" app did very little (something to do with toolbars). Office starts very fast largely because MS wrote their own linker just for these applications, and it only loads needed code on demand.
VB.NET silently does a lot of data-coversion which C# doesn't do. This moves an entire class of bugs from complie-time to run-time. Your example is just one of these.
For example, this code:
Console.WriteLine( 2 + Test() )
I think would work with your example and actually return "2" rather than Null Pointer Exception or whatever. Gack.
Excel has that wierd implimentation of MDI that's inconsistent with everthing else out there.
Get a new version of Excel.
If you're going to flame Office, that's fine. But at least qualify that you are stuck on a 5 year old copy that's soon going to be three major versions behind the curve. People like you are the reason they use Dinosaurs in their adverts -- you aren't even aware how behind you are unless someone tells you.
It's funny, because when MS tried that with Office (having minimalist menus with only the commonly-used functionality exposed by default, and having install-on-demand features) it was called an abomination...
When Office 97 came out, there was a big hubub in the tradepress about how it took over 50% of an average hard drive (which would have been around 500MB at that point, I think). So, MS responded with the annoying install-on-demand feature in Office 2000. But by then, everyone had large harddrives and didn't want to have to insert the CD everytime they clicked on something.
As for the menu hiding thing -- make no doubt about it, it's because the menu/dialog structure in Office was hacked together in 1994 and it sucks. But they had been afraid to change anything because of scary retraining costs. So they hid the menus and provided alternate routes to the same functionality.
However, with the upcoming version (2006?), they are finally getting away from their 1994-style UI and have rethought the entire interface. This could be good or could be bad, but at least gets Office out of conservative reactionary UI mode and into something new.
Frankly, MS is right. OOO is a very old-style 1990s GUI program. But so is Office 2003. If the new Office UI catches on, they're both going to look obsolete.
It's only because of our "tech is so much better!!!!" mentality that people seem to think they need [some software package] and never even think that simple paper and pencil might actually be better.
Are you sure you're on the right message board?
Oh, and Outlook has a pretty decent spam filter. Always helps to get your facts straight before going on a FUD rant.
Your X11 video driver runs in privledged mode and pokes at memory and hardware all it likes. That it's not in the "kernel" is just an implementation detail that is mostly irrelevant to stability. (This ATI driver seems to do a great job with borking my Linux box.)
When you got into the 386/486/586 era, Dell was more famous for shipping fast machines at incredibly low prices. Of course Dell's plasticy machines were considerably more slapdash and less-refined than the steel Compaqs and IBMs of the day.
Ultimately Dell's allegiance to Intel put the in the #1 spot. While Compaq and HP mucked around with special crippled components, no-name chipsets, and "non-standard" BIOSes, Dell was the best of the clones -- basic, very average in all ways, Intel-Everything, and mostly non-problematic. The cases are still cheap plastic, but so are everyone else's nowdays.
There should be a table in the OS of hashes of things not to run ever with a second table of overrides for the local admin/user to maintain independently than the one that could get updated every time software update gets run.
Interesting article. I won't deny that MS makes it difficult to have "ala carte" OSes -- the vendor pretty much has to identify a different brandname etc.
I dunno, it seems like Open Source developers generally produce generic C/C++ code and are unlikely to devote massive amounts of time optimizing for a specialized architecture like Cell. There's been a PS2 Linux kit for years, and how many specialized open source PS2 apps are there?
The Nokia 770 is hardly comparable because it's really just a standard *nix/X11 box in a handlheld form.
Slashdot Mirror
You really think this Mac Zealot guy has a legitimate interest in security? Har. Since when is arguing with ZDNET about Macs legitimate academic anything?
Yes, my mileage does vary. The HP 42xx is probably the most common dept laser printer in the world, and it comes with a parallel port.
Yes, if you're going to be onsite for any length of time. But if you're just visiting for a meeting, the chance of having network print access is just about zero in my experience. (I'm not saying it's an extremely common usecase .. I've maybe done it twice in 10 years. But IBM designed the T-series to be the ultimate roadwarrior laptop, and I presume they knew what they were doing.)
> Aye I'm not sure why the T42 has a parallel port.
Walk into the average office building and you'll see a bunch of HP departmental laser printers that all have parallel ports (and very few if any have USB). If you think of the on-site salesman or consultant, they want to be able to print without worrying about how to get on someone's network.
I've also wondered how an EDU employee can get away with spending so much time on blatent Apple advocacy activitites. (And not just for IT matters either -- daveschroeder spends a lot of time "defending" Apple's policies about iPods and iTMS.)
Presumably his position must be funded by Apple or rewarded by Apple somehow, and "University of Wisconsin Mac Zealot" is actually in his job description. (Sure, Apple rewards loyal sysadmins with nice freebies like flat panels and iPods, but daveschroeder's activities are way to blatent for that sort of under-the-table stuff.)
The UW Appropriate Use Policy specifically disallows the use of "University IT resources to represent the interests of any non-University group or organization" (Apple), so presumably this must be sanctioned by his higher-ups.
I thought about emailing the UW CIO to ask, but I've got better things to do.
Also of note is that Mac OSX currently has an a user base of over 10 million machines. So the argument that it's too small a target is ridiculous.
How many of these are server machines running Apache and OpenSSH? Only a tiny percentage -- OS X Server has something like a 0.2% marketshare last I heard.
As per usual, Mac users are overly fixated about their platform's reputation. OS X is a Unix (especially on the server) -- and Unix's reputation is hardly complete airtight security. There's a ton of Unix hacking knowhow out there, which a less competant OS X administrator could fall victim to.
The bottomline is that Operating Systems aren't secure, configurations are secure. So unless there's some horrible flaw found in the default install, I wouldn't get so worked up about how this reflects on your beloved platform.
SSH and everything else is off by default and the average user won't enable them, probably won't even know how to enable them.
Right. So what's the point in enabling them for this "security challenge"? If the goal is to enulate a server environment, why not a OS X Server machine? A desktop Mac is far more likely to have SMB and AFP turned on than SSH -- why aren't they enabled?
Isn't front-line tech support the monkeys who read scripts and esclate you to the people who actually know what they're talking about?
Anyway, you're wrong. MS Office has never had a preloader and has never run in the background. The old "startup" app did very little (something to do with toolbars). Office starts very fast largely because MS wrote their own linker just for these applications, and it only loads needed code on demand.
Him >> the syntax is similar, but there are still large differences. Scripting vs OOP.
You > You can write OO Javascript (it's fun too!!!)
I agree about Javascript being fun, but the OO syntax (and underlying functionality) is completely different thatn Java's. You beat your own argument.
VB.NET silently does a lot of data-coversion which C# doesn't do. This moves an entire class of bugs from complie-time to run-time. Your example is just one of these.
For example, this code:
Console.WriteLine( 2 + Test() )
I think would work with your example and actually return "2" rather than Null Pointer Exception or whatever. Gack.
Excel has that wierd implimentation of MDI that's inconsistent with everthing else out there.
Get a new version of Excel.
If you're going to flame Office, that's fine. But at least qualify that you are stuck on a 5 year old copy that's soon going to be three major versions behind the curve. People like you are the reason they use Dinosaurs in their adverts -- you aren't even aware how behind you are unless someone tells you.
It's funny, because when MS tried that with Office (having minimalist menus with only the commonly-used functionality exposed by default, and having install-on-demand features) it was called an abomination...
When Office 97 came out, there was a big hubub in the tradepress about how it took over 50% of an average hard drive (which would have been around 500MB at that point, I think). So, MS responded with the annoying install-on-demand feature in Office 2000. But by then, everyone had large harddrives and didn't want to have to insert the CD everytime they clicked on something.
As for the menu hiding thing -- make no doubt about it, it's because the menu/dialog structure in Office was hacked together in 1994 and it sucks. But they had been afraid to change anything because of scary retraining costs. So they hid the menus and provided alternate routes to the same functionality.
However, with the upcoming version (2006?), they are finally getting away from their 1994-style UI and have rethought the entire interface. This could be good or could be bad, but at least gets Office out of conservative reactionary UI mode and into something new.
Frankly, MS is right. OOO is a very old-style 1990s GUI program. But so is Office 2003. If the new Office UI catches on, they're both going to look obsolete.
It's only because of our "tech is so much better!!!!" mentality that people seem to think they need [some software package] and never even think that simple paper and pencil might actually be better.
Are you sure you're on the right message board?
Oh, and Outlook has a pretty decent spam filter. Always helps to get your facts straight before going on a FUD rant.
Well, you see, Ma Bell's advertising, I mean propaganda, said .. um .. errr ..
Hey Look -- Video Phones!
Speaking of trolls, attempting to categorize Intel-based laptops based on one old Pentium-4 boatanchor is exactly that.
Your X11 video driver runs in privledged mode and pokes at memory and hardware all it likes. That it's not in the "kernel" is just an implementation detail that is mostly irrelevant to stability. (This ATI driver seems to do a great job with borking my Linux box.)
They are state protected monopoly rights and are in their essense incompatible with a liberal market view.
As if Real Estate, corporate securities, or many other forms of property were any different.
When you got into the 386/486/586 era, Dell was more famous for shipping fast machines at incredibly low prices. Of course Dell's plasticy machines were considerably more slapdash and less-refined than the steel Compaqs and IBMs of the day.
Ultimately Dell's allegiance to Intel put the in the #1 spot. While Compaq and HP mucked around with special crippled components, no-name chipsets, and "non-standard" BIOSes, Dell was the best of the clones -- basic, very average in all ways, Intel-Everything, and mostly non-problematic. The cases are still cheap plastic, but so are everyone else's nowdays.
Have you ever seen a major brandname PC in your life? They haven't printed nerdy BIOS crap on the screen in many, many years.
The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail did a damn fine job coming up with a great conspiracy theory that Dan Brown leeched
Actually, Holy Blood Holy Grail is a rehash of various French conspiracy theories (which is pretty much admitted in the book).
There should be a table in the OS of hashes of things not to run ever with a second table of overrides for the local admin/user to maintain independently than the one that could get updated every time software update gets run.
Windows 2000 and up can do this.
Interesting article. I won't deny that MS makes it difficult to have "ala carte" OSes -- the vendor pretty much has to identify a different brandname etc.
I don't know about the Disney/Ovitz thing, but a quick Google seems to imply that it was a shareholder lawsuit.
Except NES didn't cost $100 in 1985, it cost $200 for the "core" version, which is $354 in 2005 dollars.
I dunno, it seems like Open Source developers generally produce generic C/C++ code and are unlikely to devote massive amounts of time optimizing for a specialized architecture like Cell. There's been a PS2 Linux kit for years, and how many specialized open source PS2 apps are there?
The Nokia 770 is hardly comparable because it's really just a standard *nix/X11 box in a handlheld form.