Wreck? What is it now? It's the best guaranteed loser for investment. Yeah, yeah, I know - Enron. That's why you don't put all your eggs in one basket. So let's see here, why don't _I_ like "Social Security"?
Average of 1 to 1.5% interest per year (I could do better with CDs even when rates were rock BOTTOM)
You get benefits at 65
When you die, there's no remainder to pass along as inheiritance
What are the benefits again?
That being said - I'm all for paying into Social Security to support those who depend on it or have paid into it for decades (and doing so as long as needed). But as a younger worker (30), give me the opportunity to save some of that myself in my own plan. Don't force me to pay into something I don't want and provides virtually ZERO benefit!
So then what is every "research article" on the MS site, then? Pretty words with shaky backing...
Further, at the risk of you reading the entire thing - they also describe how the overall archtecture of the Windows vs. Linux system affects security as well as address many other misconceptions and issues with the "official" Forrester report. You're picking on, and mis-representing, a small number of the issues in the paper - a vaery large amount of which is completely valid. Through that, you want to discount the entire document?
Whatever, it doesn't sound like you'd pay attention regardless of what it said.
I think it's YOUR post that should be a rant on a fringe ---
So what's the difference between that and IT Management? We have to wipe the fecal remains of Sr Mgmt "decisions" and "strategic direction" and try to transform it into some semblance of logic for our teams. We also have to calm any panic caused by flinging of such fecal matter by MBA-wielding execs.
Finally, try telling me that a large corporation isn't an insane asylum! The only issue is that those who should be wearing snug jackets instead have very large desks.
The local idiots who run my business unit were at on "offsite" to determine the impact of a large acquisition by the parent company. During a week of being offsite, they managed to reverse direction _3_ times! (this is of course, direction they are giving teams actually doing work that needs to be addressed "ASAP") Quite a feat, really.
Then they wonder why one of the affected proposals wasn't completed...
Typically I ignore such drivel, but since I have some time to kill...
I don't refer to the guys on my team as "underlings"
You have no basis for making that statement. Your post is more of a reflection on you than me
I bust my ass to make sure what comes out of the greater architecture team is logical and spend a lot of time "running interference" to keep the morons away from my team.
Further, I've built this team virtually from scratch and it's a pretty d@mn fine crew. They have skills I can't hold a candle to and I give them due respect. Considering they had other offer(s) when they chose this job and have stuck with it through the current round of BS - I'd say they don't feel that way.
Am I little defensive? Yeah, I've seen incompetent mgmt dorks and I don't respond well to insipid one-liners.
As a PHB, I resemble that remark! Clearly you do not appreciate the fine art which is combining management and technical decision-making. Neither does my parent corp.
I have the distinct, but sadly not unusual, pleasure of watching my company execute a brilliant strategy of:
Outsouring Data Center Operations (systems that used to down for seconds a year are now down for days and in some cases weeks per year)
Outsource development to India (which has been a mess I won't use the foul language to describe) _AND_
Squeeze remaining people to make up for items 1 and 2!
Since becoming a PHB (although I still do architecture work - thankfully), I've found that mindless boneheaded, sweeping decisions, are usually driven by some empty-suit, bean-counting, incompetent, barely literate, sh!t-for-brains syncophant who found themselves in an executive position purely by accident. We're "encouraged" to support their "strategies". Indeed...
It's a much higher order PHB. Kinda like a 4th degree black-belt, but not.
I suspect that from your sig and post that you have been outsourced. I guess we have one less idiot in the IT pool. Enjoy McDonalds - "Would you like fries with that?"
We have deployed literally HUNDREDS of Intel servers over the past 3 years. We started with Windows and now are almost completely Linux. Windows WAS replacing some *NIX systems, but now it's Linux on IBM blades or 44x series machines.
To be frank, the only reason we have any Windows at all is the ease of development and a slew of undertalented developers who can't write proper Java or C/C++ code. Aside from that we're excusively Linux (with AIX for some of the apps that only scale vertically). We actually looking to convert a.NET business unit to Java within the next 6-9 months (start conversion).
Further, I become mildly enraged over the whole MS/TCO argument. My team is responsible for ~120 servers (Windows/Linux/AIX) which support dev/QA/Performance/New Tech Evaluations, production is another group, of which the vast majority (~90) are Linux. We spend a grossly disproportionate amount of time supporting Windows and AIX although Windows is the worse of the 2.
Anyway, we have a few small Windows projects (which have very mixed results as we have a 24x7 high-transaction shop). A big one coming up, I've voiced my concerns and my plan is to sit back and watch the fireworks when it goes south. My attitude is simply this: It's technology, my only crteria is how efficiently we can manage systems in support of business requirements. If technology 'X' can meet requirements I'm fine with it - rah-rah-rah I'll support it. If it can't then I take issue. AIX is a sporatic PITA whereas Windows has been a constant source of pain. Linux has only been an issue with new kernels on new hardware (duh) and with respect to RedHat VM "improvements".
The short of that rant is that if you evaluate technology solely on the basis of capability and cost, Linux will prove a highly desireable solution. Technical issues and cost (clustered SQLServer and Biztalk are NOT cheap) will start to show up on the MS side of things... AIX, is, well, AIX and is from the same company that brought you OS/2 (which started strong and underwent a truly painful death).
I'm anti-Outlook, but I agree on the meeting room and whatnot functionality. We also use it for reserving our performance test facility. Add it in a meeting request for as long as you like, and either the team lead or myself (PHB) will approve, disapprove, or adjust.
It's kind of a hack, but it is convenient...
And yes, the bloody e-mail client SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS. Our e-mail team wants us to forward SPAM to them so they can tweak the filter, BUT, if you do them Outlook will d/l images which tells the low-life spammers that I'm a real account. Brilliant...
This thing is noise. Technically, this is so pie-in-the-sky it's a joke.
What you have is a professor who has no clue. He doesn't understand the technical aspect, nor the social one. Sheesh, people freaked over RFID. Now we're going to pass legislation which forces all users to open their computer to copyright holding "good guys"?
LOL, I mean it's funny how stupid this thing is:
Discussion: Since the evil-doer may have control of a local
firewall or NAT, the OP must be able to communicate with the OP
server, even when the firewall or NAT has been configured to
block all unused ports. Also, since the evil-doer might try to
hide his or her evil-doing by disconnecting the computer from
the network, the OP must be able to continue to communicate,
even under these circumstances. Meeting this requirement may
require that the OP client be able to reconfigure the user's
machine into a cell phone or to implement GMPLS-WH [GMPLS-WH].
and
Discussion: The OP client would be installed by legal mandate in
all new computers, but since there are hundreds of millions of
existing computers, the OP client must be able to install itself
in all of these existing computers in order to afford universal
coverage of all possible miscreants. This installation must be
accomplished even if the user, many of whom have full
administrative control over their computers, tries to prevent
it.
That's just the beginning. How the f**k is anyone going to implement that???
A Y2K inventory program written in Delphi and using Paradox as a back end DB. Working as a consultant for a Telco whose management didn't want you around.
Funny, I didn't really want to be there in the first place. being right out of college on my first project, we didn't have much of a choice.
I don't care what you like or don't like doing, that is a miserable-ass job!
OK, I rarely post anymore due to lack of time. But you summed it up perfectly. I'm a sell-out. I went from Java/J2EE architect/developer/team lead to PHB who's also doing some system level design and architecture. It's busy, but fun work. We're hiring, I've had 5 people pulled out from under me when they got offers from other companies first.
The problem as I see it is there aren't enough people like you. For every talented person I interview I deal with 5-8 squids depending on whatever, phase of the moon or something, I can't figure that out. And I'm pretty good and weeding out bad resumes.
Talented people who are enthusiastic will always have jobs. They may go for a few months w/o a job, but if they're good and they keep their skills sharp, they're golden. Having a tech degree or having read "Java/UNIX/Linux/whatever for Dummies" no longer qualifies as qualified!
I may get my ass flamed for that, but it's true. H3ll, I went the PHB route in part b/c I can weed out a$$holes and incompetents. So far we have a strong team and are looking to grow from 6 to 10-12 by Q4. And right now, you're not growing unless you;re doing something right!
Ahhh! I missed that. Are you certian? Or I suppose I should ask is he? I guess it seems hard to believe that there was no electronic automation ANYWHERE.
I can see not having it at the actual point where valves etc. were connected to the pipeline. But it seems like a central control station would certianly have some kind of automation or electronic equipment...
I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think you understand how these things work. ROM doesn't need a CPU. It's a series of output based on input. We're talking basic transistor-based gates, nothing more. There isn't "code" like you're describing. Granted, the author is confused here as well.
The Soviets were not stealing to simply copy blind, they were stealing to learn the technology. The US had to expect that every line of code they gave would be reverse engineered and disassembled.
There's no code, they would have to examine every single transistor -OR- they perform testing to ensure the chip produced the correct output for a given input. We had to hope they missed the exception condition, which they apparently did.
I don't care what the alleged technology is, there was no technology available at the time that was complex enough to hide a trojan in and expect it not to be found.
I'm sorry, but this simply isn't correct. You're making this MUCH more complicated than it was, it wasn't as complex as "trojan horses" we see today. But it was a "trojan" in that it appeared to have one function when there was a hidden, malicious sub-function being hidden.
It would be a pretty easy matter to hide a trojan in Windows NT or Linux today.
Agreed, AND we could have had MUCH better control over the results. BTW, I'm NOT trying to be combative (as in typical/. style, which I fall victim to myself sometimes), I merely want to point out what was described very definately could have been (and seemingly was) done given the tech available. It's much more "basic" than they author describes, but roughly accurate...
I fail to see how this has ANYTHING to do with Republicans, except that Regan was present at the time.
Further, there are plenty of technical details that are "glossed over", but this is hardly suprising given that the writer is not technical. For the rest, you're making TONS of assumptions for which you simply don't have the information.
These chips didn't have to be CPUs, they could have merely been ROM chips. Remember your old design classes (yeah, it's been a while for me as well, but...)? In that manner you want it to function and give correct results nearly %100 of the time (to pass testing), but give wildly WRONG answers when a certian condition is hit. Not hard to do. With that in mind, they didn't need cutting edge technology like their VAX clone.
Therefore, the situation being described is VERY possible and even probable.
Sure you can bring the system down, but not in a predictable way.
EXACTLY my point! If anything, the author described a process which he thought was much more elegant and sophicticated than it really was. Chances are, this Gus Weiss fellow was as suprised as anyone else at the magnitude of the blast.
Finally, the CIA would have no way of knowing that their goosed up control system would not have found its way into a nuclear plant.
The article said we knew they were buying tech for this project from a certian Canadian company. From that it would appear we had pretty good info regarding where this was going.
What bullshit. There is nobody who's going to confuse microsoft with mikerowesoft. Further, your examples are barely valid. The length of time it took for Lindows to come to ANY kind of verdict (which is STILL lost in the legal system) shows that.
But hey, the anti-Slashdot posters are nearly as militant as the anti-MS zealots. So good boy! +4 Insightful for you!
...just whether it can be proven. And I say it can't, IMHO. Your arguement not withstanding...
Fine, that is without knowing every single security breach within the OS. That's simply not realistic. If we go on evidence that's available today, it's very much against Windows.
There's plenty of info regarding his 2 and 3 points available, plus it's been in the news just a bit. Just go to Google and look.
From a technical standpoint, it CAN be argued that Linux would be more secure. The OS as a whole is much more de-coupled than Windows, thus decreasing interdependency and complexity between components. The integration (and tight coupling) of components in Windows (IE,.NET, etc.) causes an increase of interdependency and complexity. Thus creating a system which is more difficult to maintain and is more prone to technical failures and hence security exploits.
The ability to seperate unneeded crap from Linux, BSD, etc. is to the great benefit to those platforms from a stability and security standpoint. From a fundamental, architectural point-of-view systems built with that reduced level of coupling have much greater potential to be "secure".
This is all based on basic software engineering principles...
Does this mean they are? No. But MS has created a situation where they will have great difficulty securing their OS, if they can at all
> The fact that IBM and other Big Name companies are telling SCO to go pound salt...
Yes, but MS flew several of our execs (mostly technical execs) to Redmond to highlight their products, particularly aiming at the low-cost computing model. It was basically an attempt to take a whack at Linux since we were 4 months into a company-wide effort to adopt Linux at the expense of commercial UNIX and Windows.
The sales/marketing people made quite a large mention about the SCO suit making it sound like a forgone conclusion that Linux would be dead in a matter of months.
We're the largest business unit in my company and others looked to us for guidance on it. The presentation backfired and our CIO came back pretty hardened against MS.
Basically he felt it was "Use our stuff b/c Linux will be gone and then you won't have a choice anyway".
Revenge? you want revenge? Just sit back and watch as the security for that company gets pummeled.
I've rarely seen outsourcing go well. Now we're talking about info-sec? You're going to outsource the "guardians at the gate" job to a company whose tactics should be seen as seedy by the dumbest of Pointy-Haired-Bosses??? They'll get what they deserve. Maybe not sooner, but certianly later. Considering they are a financial company, the PR cost alone could be disasterous.
Pardon my language, but f**k 'em. I'd leave cordially but expressing reservation about their tactics and ability to execute. IMHO there's no reason to burn bridges, IT is too close knit to do that. Plus there's no benefit for the guy who got canned. They could come back and beg him to return if there's a bridge left standing
Finally, companies who act like greedy sheep are inevitably led to slaughter. I know, I work for one and we're getting killed for bone-headed accountant-driven decisions very similar to those decribed here...
Slashdot Mirror
What's an "asshat"?
What are the benefits again?
That being said - I'm all for paying into Social Security to support those who depend on it or have paid into it for decades (and doing so as long as needed). But as a younger worker (30), give me the opportunity to save some of that myself in my own plan. Don't force me to pay into something I don't want and provides virtually ZERO benefit!
Or something like that
So then what is every "research article" on the MS site, then? Pretty words with shaky backing...
Further, at the risk of you reading the entire thing - they also describe how the overall archtecture of the Windows vs. Linux system affects security as well as address many other misconceptions and issues with the "official" Forrester report. You're picking on, and mis-representing, a small number of the issues in the paper - a vaery large amount of which is completely valid. Through that, you want to discount the entire document?
Whatever, it doesn't sound like you'd pay attention regardless of what it said.
I think it's YOUR post that should be a rant on a fringe ---
Oh wait...
Finally, try telling me that a large corporation isn't an insane asylum! The only issue is that those who should be wearing snug jackets instead have very large desks.
The local idiots who run my business unit were at on "offsite" to determine the impact of a large acquisition by the parent company. During a week of being offsite, they managed to reverse direction _3_ times! (this is of course, direction they are giving teams actually doing work that needs to be addressed "ASAP") Quite a feat, really.
Then they wonder why one of the affected proposals wasn't completed...
Further, I've built this team virtually from scratch and it's a pretty d@mn fine crew. They have skills I can't hold a candle to and I give them due respect. Considering they had other offer(s) when they chose this job and have stuck with it through the current round of BS - I'd say they don't feel that way.
Am I little defensive? Yeah, I've seen incompetent mgmt dorks and I don't respond well to insipid one-liners.
I have the distinct, but sadly not unusual, pleasure of watching my company execute a brilliant strategy of:
Since becoming a PHB (although I still do architecture work - thankfully), I've found that mindless boneheaded, sweeping decisions, are usually driven by some empty-suit, bean-counting, incompetent, barely literate, sh!t-for-brains syncophant who found themselves in an executive position purely by accident. We're "encouraged" to support their "strategies". Indeed...
It's a much higher order PHB. Kinda like a 4th degree black-belt, but not.
One part game combined with two parts cocaine...
I suspect that from your sig and post that you have been outsourced. I guess we have one less idiot in the IT pool. Enjoy McDonalds - "Would you like fries with that?"
We have deployed literally HUNDREDS of Intel servers over the past 3 years. We started with Windows and now are almost completely Linux. Windows WAS replacing some *NIX systems, but now it's Linux on IBM blades or 44x series machines.
To be frank, the only reason we have any Windows at all is the ease of development and a slew of undertalented developers who can't write proper Java or C/C++ code. Aside from that we're excusively Linux (with AIX for some of the apps that only scale vertically). We actually looking to convert a .NET business unit to Java within the next 6-9 months (start conversion).
Further, I become mildly enraged over the whole MS/TCO argument. My team is responsible for ~120 servers (Windows/Linux/AIX) which support dev/QA/Performance/New Tech Evaluations, production is another group, of which the vast majority (~90) are Linux. We spend a grossly disproportionate amount of time supporting Windows and AIX although Windows is the worse of the 2.
Anyway, we have a few small Windows projects (which have very mixed results as we have a 24x7 high-transaction shop). A big one coming up, I've voiced my concerns and my plan is to sit back and watch the fireworks when it goes south. My attitude is simply this: It's technology, my only crteria is how efficiently we can manage systems in support of business requirements. If technology 'X' can meet requirements I'm fine with it - rah-rah-rah I'll support it. If it can't then I take issue. AIX is a sporatic PITA whereas Windows has been a constant source of pain. Linux has only been an issue with new kernels on new hardware (duh) and with respect to RedHat VM "improvements".
The short of that rant is that if you evaluate technology solely on the basis of capability and cost, Linux will prove a highly desireable solution. Technical issues and cost (clustered SQLServer and Biztalk are NOT cheap) will start to show up on the MS side of things... AIX, is, well, AIX and is from the same company that brought you OS/2 (which started strong and underwent a truly painful death).
Both are good ideas! Thx for the suggestions...
It's kind of a hack, but it is convenient...
And yes, the bloody e-mail client SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS. Our e-mail team wants us to forward SPAM to them so they can tweak the filter, BUT, if you do them Outlook will d/l images which tells the low-life spammers that I'm a real account. Brilliant...
Happy April Fool's Day. D@mn I'm dumb...
What you have is a professor who has no clue. He doesn't understand the technical aspect, nor the social one. Sheesh, people freaked over RFID. Now we're going to pass legislation which forces all users to open their computer to copyright holding "good guys"?
LOL, I mean it's funny how stupid this thing is:
Discussion: Since the evil-doer may have control of a local firewall or NAT, the OP must be able to communicate with the OP server, even when the firewall or NAT has been configured to block all unused ports. Also, since the evil-doer might try to hide his or her evil-doing by disconnecting the computer from the network, the OP must be able to continue to communicate, even under these circumstances. Meeting this requirement may require that the OP client be able to reconfigure the user's machine into a cell phone or to implement GMPLS-WH [GMPLS-WH].
and
Discussion: The OP client would be installed by legal mandate in all new computers, but since there are hundreds of millions of existing computers, the OP client must be able to install itself in all of these existing computers in order to afford universal coverage of all possible miscreants. This installation must be accomplished even if the user, many of whom have full administrative control over their computers, tries to prevent it.
That's just the beginning. How the f**k is anyone going to implement that???
Funny, I didn't really want to be there in the first place. being right out of college on my first project, we didn't have much of a choice.
I don't care what you like or don't like doing, that is a miserable-ass job!
The problem as I see it is there aren't enough people like you. For every talented person I interview I deal with 5-8 squids depending on whatever, phase of the moon or something, I can't figure that out. And I'm pretty good and weeding out bad resumes. Talented people who are enthusiastic will always have jobs. They may go for a few months w/o a job, but if they're good and they keep their skills sharp, they're golden. Having a tech degree or having read "Java/UNIX/Linux/whatever for Dummies" no longer qualifies as qualified!
I may get my ass flamed for that, but it's true. H3ll, I went the PHB route in part b/c I can weed out a$$holes and incompetents. So far we have a strong team and are looking to grow from 6 to 10-12 by Q4. And right now, you're not growing unless you;re doing something right!
I can see not having it at the actual point where valves etc. were connected to the pipeline. But it seems like a central control station would certianly have some kind of automation or electronic equipment...
The Soviets were not stealing to simply copy blind, they were stealing to learn the technology. The US had to expect that every line of code they gave would be reverse engineered and disassembled.
There's no code, they would have to examine every single transistor -OR- they perform testing to ensure the chip produced the correct output for a given input. We had to hope they missed the exception condition, which they apparently did.
I don't care what the alleged technology is, there was no technology available at the time that was complex enough to hide a trojan in and expect it not to be found.
I'm sorry, but this simply isn't correct. You're making this MUCH more complicated than it was, it wasn't as complex as "trojan horses" we see today. But it was a "trojan" in that it appeared to have one function when there was a hidden, malicious sub-function being hidden.
It would be a pretty easy matter to hide a trojan in Windows NT or Linux today.
Agreed, AND we could have had MUCH better control over the results. BTW, I'm NOT trying to be combative (as in typical /. style, which I fall victim to myself sometimes), I merely want to point out what was described very definately could have been (and seemingly was) done given the tech available. It's much more "basic" than they author describes, but roughly accurate...
Further, there are plenty of technical details that are "glossed over", but this is hardly suprising given that the writer is not technical. For the rest, you're making TONS of assumptions for which you simply don't have the information.
These chips didn't have to be CPUs, they could have merely been ROM chips. Remember your old design classes (yeah, it's been a while for me as well, but...)? In that manner you want it to function and give correct results nearly %100 of the time (to pass testing), but give wildly WRONG answers when a certian condition is hit. Not hard to do. With that in mind, they didn't need cutting edge technology like their VAX clone.
Therefore, the situation being described is VERY possible and even probable.
Sure you can bring the system down, but not in a predictable way.
EXACTLY my point! If anything, the author described a process which he thought was much more elegant and sophicticated than it really was. Chances are, this Gus Weiss fellow was as suprised as anyone else at the magnitude of the blast.
Finally, the CIA would have no way of knowing that their goosed up control system would not have found its way into a nuclear plant.
The article said we knew they were buying tech for this project from a certian Canadian company. From that it would appear we had pretty good info regarding where this was going.
As if 1 out of 100 people outside tech even know what slashdot is. Don't give it too much credit...
But hey, the anti-Slashdot posters are nearly as militant as the anti-MS zealots. So good boy! +4 Insightful for you!
Fine, that is without knowing every single security breach within the OS. That's simply not realistic. If we go on evidence that's available today, it's very much against Windows.
From a technical standpoint, it CAN be argued that Linux would be more secure. The OS as a whole is much more de-coupled than Windows, thus decreasing interdependency and complexity between components. The integration (and tight coupling) of components in Windows (IE, .NET, etc.) causes an increase of interdependency and complexity. Thus creating a system which is more difficult to maintain and is more prone to technical failures and hence security exploits.
The ability to seperate unneeded crap from Linux, BSD, etc. is to the great benefit to those platforms from a stability and security standpoint. From a fundamental, architectural point-of-view systems built with that reduced level of coupling have much greater potential to be "secure".
This is all based on basic software engineering principles...
Does this mean they are? No. But MS has created a situation where they will have great difficulty securing their OS, if they can at all
Yes, but MS flew several of our execs (mostly technical execs) to Redmond to highlight their products, particularly aiming at the low-cost computing model. It was basically an attempt to take a whack at Linux since we were 4 months into a company-wide effort to adopt Linux at the expense of commercial UNIX and Windows.
The sales/marketing people made quite a large mention about the SCO suit making it sound like a forgone conclusion that Linux would be dead in a matter of months.
We're the largest business unit in my company and others looked to us for guidance on it. The presentation backfired and our CIO came back pretty hardened against MS.
Basically he felt it was "Use our stuff b/c Linux will be gone and then you won't have a choice anyway".
It's just the flip side of the coin...
I've rarely seen outsourcing go well. Now we're talking about info-sec? You're going to outsource the "guardians at the gate" job to a company whose tactics should be seen as seedy by the dumbest of Pointy-Haired-Bosses??? They'll get what they deserve. Maybe not sooner, but certianly later. Considering they are a financial company, the PR cost alone could be disasterous.
Pardon my language, but f**k 'em. I'd leave cordially but expressing reservation about their tactics and ability to execute. IMHO there's no reason to burn bridges, IT is too close knit to do that. Plus there's no benefit for the guy who got canned. They could come back and beg him to return if there's a bridge left standing
Finally, companies who act like greedy sheep are inevitably led to slaughter. I know, I work for one and we're getting killed for bone-headed accountant-driven decisions very similar to those decribed here...