No, you don't have to be a "god", but you have to be willing to do some reading, learning and get dirty in config and log files.
Quite frankly, I think the "wizards" are a bad idea in Linux. They insulate the user from understanding the underpinnings of the OS.
The fexibility and strength of Linux come at a price - there certianly is a degree of complexity in config and admin.
However, hacked 4 times? That doesn't make sense. Go and shut off unused services and block ALL ports except those needed.p?
BTW, pardon my rude responses. I'm having a bad day and you happened to catch the brunt of my irritation. Regardless of the fact that I strongly disagree with your points, such responses are not needed.
I THINK (which leads to the inevitable conclusion I think, therefore I am confused) that CHiPs is somewhat misleading in that they are also the State Police. I think it's a term that basically says they have jurisdictional power across traditional boundries within the state.
It just so happens that their core responsibilities are on the highways. Even so, why not the Sacremento PD? CBI?
OK, I did read those links, and what I saw was certianly disturbing. HOWEVER, i have to question the methods used to gather those numbers. When those numbers were gathered the Taliban was still in power. They were NOT letting any journalists run around reporting on these details. We had several reports of western journalists taken prisoner for trying to see what was going on. Not just American, but French and British as well.
In short, there is NO WAY I think those numbers can be verified. Period. I think there're likely blown way out of proportion for the sake of the media - which in general didn't work. This may be somewhere we disagree. Fine.
But I don't think there is any way you can state that the US did these things on purpose. I mean, c'mon, hitting civilians with smart bombs? If nothing else, from an economic and political standpoint (basically the LCD) it doesn't make sense, much less from a humanitarian standpoint.
Really? I knew a person who worked on the DSL project at Qwest (when DSL was BRAND new). She told me they did integration with another portion of the system and rolled it out without testing it since Qwest had told customers that DSL would be rolled out on that day. Then it was the standard process:
Deveopers protest
Developers ignored
System crashes (within 5 minutes, although the fact that it came up I thought was impressive)
Developers blamed
I'm sure that wasn't a common occurance. Although as a Qwest DSL customer it cleared up a lot for me...
Oh please... Do you mean to tell me that you think that handfull of civilians comes close to what the Taliban did? Yes, our bombs hitting civilians were tragic MISTAKES, but they were just that. Mistakes.
Further, most of the hard-core socialist nations not is the "West" don't even know how much they are putting out. The USSR and Eastern Block dwarfed the US in industrial waste output. It's changing now, but slowly, VERY slowly. We just watch that sort of thing over here...
Typically I don't respond to "people" like you. But I'll make this one exception. SU or not, a virus in the "more mature NT/2K OS" can still do plenty of damage. Like disabling anti-virus SW, and doing other damage to system files.
My father, running as a user with no Admin access(as I have him set up) had a virus which totally disabled McAffee as well as several NT services. Basically I spent many hours reinstalling stuff to totally clean everything. Granted, there wasn't TOTAL damage, but that's no real consolation for this "mature" OS of yours.
the fact that Evolution cannot unseat Outlook because outlook works and most users aren't going to make the effort to move to something new for essentially the same thing. Maybe not, it's the lemming factor.
Nonetheless, if one was an SA or esp in management (of an SA group), I would think that finding an e-mail client that offered similar functionality, better security and ease-of-use as compared to Outlook would be welcomed. Particularly when these "idiot" e-mail viruses continue to be a problem. They waste the time of the SA group (cleaning up the mess) and kill productivity for the poor saps that are "victims" by opening these viruses. Finally, due to the similarity between Evolution and Outlook, a memo describing the new e-mail client and that it works like Outlook would likely suffice for transition.
The fact that it DOESN'T run on Windows is an issue that will hopefully be resovled, although doesn't affect me, I admit...
Hmmm, I didn't see any mention of windows 9x vs 2000. He merely said that windows security is a disaster. If you want to think it's great, that's fine, but you're in the minority.
Then he talks about Windows 9x security. What does that have to do with a mail client. How many large companies out there actually use 98 and not 2000 anyway.
And he talks almost entirely about these so-called miraculous new features (mail sorting, etc.) with almost no mention as to downsides. It is such a disgusting piece of non-reporting/advertising that it disgusts me to look at it.
As far as trolls go, you're not BAD. Some dis-information with anti-/. outrage. Just average. However, if the moderators had actually READ the article, you would've been mod'ed appropriately. As it is, you should appreciate lazy mods...
With GPL software you can't sell the software itself, the expenses of developing the software must be shifted elsewhere.
Sure you can! RedHat, SuSE, etc all sell Linux. You have to provide the SOURCE for the GPL'ed portions, that's what has to be provided. I don't think SuSE even provides dowloads of thier distro anymore.
They provide the source, but not the actual ISOs or other form of download. I consider myself pretty savvy when it comes to dealing with OSS software, and I wouldn't want to take on compiling all of the elements of a distro!
Minor difference? Am I nitpicking? Maybe, but it's still important!
Here we go. Here's MY personal story of employee-driven chaos.
We had a SW Architect who was really anything but. He WAS a great salesman and was able to BS his way out of trouble for ~2 years before they tossed his butt out. When he left, I had been there for ~6 months. In that time, he had burned roughly 150 CDs, he said for backup of our project (our TOTAL source was less than 2 floppies). He also password protected all of his PCs (forcing us to remove the BIOS battery).
Further, on the server, about 7GB of a 13GB HDD was of a format not recognized by the Mandrake installer. The only thing I could think of was that it was encrypted. Who knows what data was taken or what was on that partition. We reported what we saw and re-formatted...
Add another 4 months. They fired this guy but didn't revoke his user/pass. So he manages to find a server with telnet exposed to the internet and "hack in" (using his still working user/pass). He then procedes to go to every server he can find and rm -rf on every directory where he has access. They ended up rebuilding 3 Sun boxes.
No, I don't think you could have possibly missed the point by a greater degree. Software, in whatever form, provides a service. It's an OS, a webserver, an appserver, a... That's it. Further, a decision to use SW or not should be based on the value this software brings to the table.
If a SW package 'A' has less value then 'B', then one should probably use 'B'. Closed / Open source doesn't have any bearing. The OSS argument is that many OSS sw packages bring similar, and in some cases greater value to the table than closed source software.
There are certianly exceptions. But for the most part, I see companies taken to the cleaners for software whole capabilities they will never truely exercise. (Could have bought something smaller and less expensive)
More revenues and profit for software companies leads to:
More jobs for engineers
More venture capital investments
More new companies being started to share (and make smaller) that profit (microeconomic fact actually, despite the position of Microsoft)
I'd love to see any data/examples you have on this. I think history paints a somewhat different picture. As a software company (be it MS, Oracle, IBM, McAffee, etc) finds a successful product, they tend to expand in their own industry and dominate it. I highly doubt that you can find ANY example to support your ideas above. On the contrary, we have MS (desktop and office suites), Oracle (DB), IBM (used to dominate on servers, DB, etc), McAfee (anti-virus).
Further, the billions made by SW companies goes into the hands of Executives, Share Holders and VCs NOT into the hands of the everyday worker. I'm not a class warrior, but let's call a spade a spade.
BUT when you think of multi-billion-dollar companies re-building their software budgets and moving to free software to cut costs, it's a whole other thing.
On the contrary, the best example I've seen used OSS software when they started out and MIGRATED to more robust closed source solutions as NEEDED (think sprial dev methodology). If they had gone straight to the expensive solution, they would have managed to waste a lot of money on stuff they didn't need and would have needed to purchase more sw later (as some requirements weren't totally hashed out early on).
don't you people here think that the money made from proprietary (open or closed) software sold for raw cash is what funds this industry?
NO, I really don't. And I DON'T work as a sysadmin, I AM a software engineer who does development and integration work. When I'm building custom SW, more of the money spent on development goes to me as oppoesed to a COTS company where I'm also supporting the beaurocracy.
Again, I'm not opposed to closed source, I almost took a job with a closed source company, but I think it's incredibly mis-leading to say that closed source software drives the industry when most programers don't make their living writing closed source software..
another push by MS to extend into other industries? They already have MS/NBC and isn't CNBC another joint venture with NBC & GE?
I'm no MS fan (by a long shot), but this seems like smart business to me, by moving into other industries they're not wholly dependent on software. They're already in entertainment, tried digital communications (failed satellite venture) and just introduced a gaming device (X-Box). They know they can do entertainment (look at everything they've contributed to/. stories!;) ), so why not expand on that?
I'm not saying they may not try to manipulate content or use another tactic, but it seems to make business sense from their past investments...
If this is another "opportunity" to keep pressure on our local Congressmen/women and Senators? Sen Disney's SSSCA was killed outright due to the number of letters recieved on the matter.
It just seems that there is an awful lot of momentum right now against this kind of "Big Brother" activity from RIAA. Why not keep it up?
It just seems absurd to me that in this day and age where terrorism is such a focal point, that we would divert funds to fight music piracy. I'm quite certian that Al Qaeda is going after the latest Dave song instead of looking for a way to hack financial companies.
Yeah, just wait, though. Boulder has been SCREAMING for light rail (or heavy rail) for years. Also, Arvada started (about a year ago) raising private and city funds to help build a line into Arvada since RTD didn't have the $$$ at the moment. I have no idea where that effort is at the moment.
After getting the concession from the state Congress, RTD finally can put a proposal to the public for a sales tax hike to start addressing the Boulder line.
Basically, (the extension)it's for people looking for entertainment, not working schmucks.
Yeah, but it's an extension from the SW line which is DEFINATELY for working schmucks and has 3X the estimated ridership. They just found that the SW line also had entertainment riders (it runs near the Can and close enough to LoDo). Have you ever been on that line at 1AM? It's full of drunken idiots (I was one of 'em) who are dodging DUIs and parking!
I don't think anyone expected the response they got for Light Rail in Denver. I think it's kinda cool. I live near downtown (Uptown) and it would be GREAT if I could to DTC without the traffic, which was bad enough before T-REX (I'm not sure it's really any worse now though).
I may be ignorant, but I is a college graduate. Doesn't Hitachi compete (to a degree) with IBM in the Big Iron class of machines? Wouldn't that suggest an OS/390-like OS? Just guessing.
Another thing that I just thought about, maybe someone can answer for me. What about OS/390? I thought that was their big mainframe OS. Is this a speed issue with the OS, clustering limitations (certianly not) or maybe ease of use (people would rather deal with *nix than a 'frame OS)?
This is opne thing I really like about Konqueror. Your can disable the javascript open() command.
Works great. No more moronic X10, mortgage or casino pop-ups!
Red Hat has shown only Pro Forma profits which means they're profitable only via the use of accounting tricks. Mandrake is in desperate straits as can be seen by the recent Mandrake blah blah blah
Fine then, how about Cobalt before it was bought by Sun? Cobalt systems are still around. How about IBM? They are effectively using Linux to help sell hardware. HP and Dell (although they are certianly more quiet about it) are more and more using Linux to help sell HW and services. As for the pure Linux companies, the competition is fierce, but they're making progress. Finally, Pro Forma or not, Red Hat is profitable. MSFT has had its accounting practices questioned as well, so you may want to be carefull there...
MSFT has not made comments against Open Source, they have specifically targetted the GPL. The GPL was authored by RMS... I'm sure you can connect the dots from there
First off, RMS didn't suthor it. It was a law professor at some Ivy school (I want to say Princeton), although he supported it. From there, you're making an invalid inferrence. RMS supports it, so does Linus Torvalds, does that mean MS is going after Torvalds as well? So does IBM. Does that mean that...
The GPL is the GPL, it's not RMS, it's not Torvalds, it's not Linux. It's the GPL. There are many GPL supporters who do not see eye-to-eye (do you really think RMS, Linus and IBM see the GPL the same way?) and use it for whatever reason they please. You can't "connect the dots from there" in the way you would like. I don't think my "comprehension skills" are the issue here...
Slashdot Mirror
Quite frankly, I think the "wizards" are a bad idea in Linux. They insulate the user from understanding the underpinnings of the OS.
The fexibility and strength of Linux come at a price - there certianly is a degree of complexity in config and admin. However, hacked 4 times? That doesn't make sense. Go and shut off unused services and block ALL ports except those needed.p? BTW, pardon my rude responses. I'm having a bad day and you happened to catch the brunt of my irritation. Regardless of the fact that I strongly disagree with your points, such responses are not needed.
Given what I've read this far, I'd turn off your *nix box(es). Seriously
this says more about your skills as a Linux user / admin than the security of the box.
It just so happens that their core responsibilities are on the highways. Even so, why not the Sacremento PD? CBI?
Well, probably, if California was buying ~$95 million worth of lightbulbs that should cost only about $54 million.
In short, there is NO WAY I think those numbers can be verified. Period. I think there're likely blown way out of proportion for the sake of the media - which in general didn't work. This may be somewhere we disagree. Fine.
But I don't think there is any way you can state that the US did these things on purpose. I mean, c'mon, hitting civilians with smart bombs? If nothing else, from an economic and political standpoint (basically the LCD) it doesn't make sense, much less from a humanitarian standpoint.
- Deveopers protest
- Developers ignored
- System crashes (within 5 minutes, although the fact that it came up I thought was impressive)
- Developers blamed
I'm sure that wasn't a common occurance. Although as a Qwest DSL customer it cleared up a lot for me...Damn, that's some cold sh!t. He just asked a question. Not many of us are very knowledgable of the inner workings of Windows.
Nor do I want to be...
Further, most of the hard-core socialist nations not is the "West" don't even know how much they are putting out. The USSR and Eastern Block dwarfed the US in industrial waste output. It's changing now, but slowly, VERY slowly. We just watch that sort of thing over here...
My father, running as a user with no Admin access(as I have him set up) had a virus which totally disabled McAffee as well as several NT services. Basically I spent many hours reinstalling stuff to totally clean everything. Granted, there wasn't TOTAL damage, but that's no real consolation for this "mature" OS of yours.
Nonetheless, if one was an SA or esp in management (of an SA group), I would think that finding an e-mail client that offered similar functionality, better security and ease-of-use as compared to Outlook would be welcomed. Particularly when these "idiot" e-mail viruses continue to be a problem. They waste the time of the SA group (cleaning up the mess) and kill productivity for the poor saps that are "victims" by opening these viruses. Finally, due to the similarity between Evolution and Outlook, a memo describing the new e-mail client and that it works like Outlook would likely suffice for transition.
The fact that it DOESN'T run on Windows is an issue that will hopefully be resovled, although doesn't affect me, I admit...
Has that changed? Did the Open guys come up with a checker? I don't suppose it would be that tough, but it seems like a LOT of grunt work...
They provide the source, but not the actual ISOs or other form of download. I consider myself pretty savvy when it comes to dealing with OSS software, and I wouldn't want to take on compiling all of the elements of a distro!
Minor difference? Am I nitpicking? Maybe, but it's still important!
We had a SW Architect who was really anything but. He WAS a great salesman and was able to BS his way out of trouble for ~2 years before they tossed his butt out. When he left, I had been there for ~6 months. In that time, he had burned roughly 150 CDs, he said for backup of our project (our TOTAL source was less than 2 floppies). He also password protected all of his PCs (forcing us to remove the BIOS battery).
Further, on the server, about 7GB of a 13GB HDD was of a format not recognized by the Mandrake installer. The only thing I could think of was that it was encrypted. Who knows what data was taken or what was on that partition. We reported what we saw and re-formatted...
Add another 4 months. They fired this guy but didn't revoke his user/pass. So he manages to find a server with telnet exposed to the internet and "hack in" (using his still working user/pass). He then procedes to go to every server he can find and rm -rf on every directory where he has access. They ended up rebuilding 3 Sun boxes.
No charges in either case.
If a SW package 'A' has less value then 'B', then one should probably use 'B'. Closed / Open source doesn't have any bearing. The OSS argument is that many OSS sw packages bring similar, and in some cases greater value to the table than closed source software.
There are certianly exceptions. But for the most part, I see companies taken to the cleaners for software whole capabilities they will never truely exercise. (Could have bought something smaller and less expensive)
I'd love to see any data/examples you have on this. I think history paints a somewhat different picture. As a software company (be it MS, Oracle, IBM, McAffee, etc) finds a successful product, they tend to expand in their own industry and dominate it. I highly doubt that you can find ANY example to support your ideas above. On the contrary, we have MS (desktop and office suites), Oracle (DB), IBM (used to dominate on servers, DB, etc), McAfee (anti-virus).Further, the billions made by SW companies goes into the hands of Executives, Share Holders and VCs NOT into the hands of the everyday worker. I'm not a class warrior, but let's call a spade a spade.
On the contrary, the best example I've seen used OSS software when they started out and MIGRATED to more robust closed source solutions as NEEDED (think sprial dev methodology). If they had gone straight to the expensive solution, they would have managed to waste a lot of money on stuff they didn't need and would have needed to purchase more sw later (as some requirements weren't totally hashed out early on). NO, I really don't. And I DON'T work as a sysadmin, I AM a software engineer who does development and integration work. When I'm building custom SW, more of the money spent on development goes to me as oppoesed to a COTS company where I'm also supporting the beaurocracy.Again, I'm not opposed to closed source, I almost took a job with a closed source company, but I think it's incredibly mis-leading to say that closed source software drives the industry when most programers don't make their living writing closed source software..
I'm no MS fan (by a long shot), but this seems like smart business to me, by moving into other industries they're not wholly dependent on software. They're already in entertainment, tried digital communications (failed satellite venture) and just introduced a gaming device (X-Box). They know they can do entertainment (look at everything they've contributed to /. stories! ;) ), so why not expand on that?
I'm not saying they may not try to manipulate content or use another tactic, but it seems to make business sense from their past investments...
With all the articles, it's easy to miss, but I'm very keyed on this whole thing...
It just seems that there is an awful lot of momentum right now against this kind of "Big Brother" activity from RIAA. Why not keep it up?
It just seems absurd to me that in this day and age where terrorism is such a focal point, that we would divert funds to fight music piracy. I'm quite certian that Al Qaeda is going after the latest Dave song instead of looking for a way to hack financial companies.
After getting the concession from the state Congress, RTD finally can put a proposal to the public for a sales tax hike to start addressing the Boulder line.
Yeah, but it's an extension from the SW line which is DEFINATELY for working schmucks and has 3X the estimated ridership. They just found that the SW line also had entertainment riders (it runs near the Can and close enough to LoDo). Have you ever been on that line at 1AM? It's full of drunken idiots (I was one of 'em) who are dodging DUIs and parking!I don't think anyone expected the response they got for Light Rail in Denver. I think it's kinda cool. I live near downtown (Uptown) and it would be GREAT if I could to DTC without the traffic, which was bad enough before T-REX (I'm not sure it's really any worse now though).
/ rant
Sorry Senator, the cat's already out of that bag...
BTW, it could have been Athlon, SPARC, Alpha or PowerPC chips. So much for are only and will only be manufactured by one company.
Another thing that I just thought about, maybe someone can answer for me. What about OS/390? I thought that was their big mainframe OS. Is this a speed issue with the OS, clustering limitations (certianly not) or maybe ease of use (people would rather deal with *nix than a 'frame OS)?
Any input?
This is opne thing I really like about Konqueror. Your can disable the javascript open() command. Works great. No more moronic X10, mortgage or casino pop-ups!
Fine then, how about Cobalt before it was bought by Sun? Cobalt systems are still around. How about IBM? They are effectively using Linux to help sell hardware. HP and Dell (although they are certianly more quiet about it) are more and more using Linux to help sell HW and services. As for the pure Linux companies, the competition is fierce, but they're making progress. Finally, Pro Forma or not, Red Hat is profitable. MSFT has had its accounting practices questioned as well, so you may want to be carefull there...
MSFT has not made comments against Open Source, they have specifically targetted the GPL. The GPL was authored by RMS ... I'm sure you can connect the dots from there
First off, RMS didn't suthor it. It was a law professor at some Ivy school (I want to say Princeton), although he supported it. From there, you're making an invalid inferrence. RMS supports it, so does Linus Torvalds, does that mean MS is going after Torvalds as well? So does IBM. Does that mean that...
The GPL is the GPL, it's not RMS, it's not Torvalds, it's not Linux. It's the GPL. There are many GPL supporters who do not see eye-to-eye (do you really think RMS, Linus and IBM see the GPL the same way?) and use it for whatever reason they please. You can't "connect the dots from there" in the way you would like. I don't think my "comprehension skills" are the issue here...