>Apple would just include a "Run me first" DVD
>that would install everything without prompts.
Eh? and why do you think MS wouldn't do that too? Scripted installs don't take long and are hard are agnostic in the main.
perhaps your IT dept is working their asses off keeping the projects running which actually have a business case - while you try to subvert and undermine them on personal "i want it" projects which do NOT have managerial buy-in
After babbling mindlessly I thought I'd do a quick check.
I'm wrong - in fact I get the feeling that it's now important that MD5 is NOT used. NIST (an authority when it comes to forensic investigations) do *not* recommend the use of MD5 checksums. The grandparent was perfectly correct. A decent summary (sorry PDF) is here
Why choose such a hashing method when SHA-224, 256, 384 or 512 are all available and safe from collision attacks?
IAMAL nor a forensic investigator - but I believe that any investigator worth their salt wouldn't care and might even agree with your suggestion.
However MD5 is perfectly fine for checksum to verify file integrity. Remember - they are not talking about using MD5 to encrypt the data - they are using it to make a "finger print" of the image so that there can be no claim of tampering with the evidence. As such - it MIGHT be possible to have a collision, but the use of a collision is pretty limited. The chance is pretty remote of setting me up by replacing my pictures of my cat LuLu with metalica-album.mp3, and having the file checksums be the same.
We had the middle ages. Europe was warmer, you could grow wine in regions you can't now. The middle East was a trading empire, Vikings were on the march, some Christians were planning the crusades. All things considered, you would probably be a poor peasant, half starving, and about to drop dead from plague or some other ailment at the ripe age of 30.
so not much different than today then?
Global warming, middle east is a major oil, the vikings are marching (does Linus count?), the 10th crusade is underway, there's quite a bit of starvation around the world with water famines on the way, plagues threaten us all (bird flu), oh - the global life expectancy has doubled so that's an improvement.
From my own personal experience working as an IT recruiter in the past, H1B Java Developers with similar education and experience often would work for about 30% less than a US citizen.
yup - and that's the free market, competition and capitalism at work for you.
I'm just not sure what it is you're suggesting as a better alternative. Removing all barriers would undoubtedly improve the profitability of US businesses. Perhaps that's what you are advocating.
ok... that's a troll-like statement. I'm really trying to point out that taking the chapest option which meets your needs is the truly competitive American way.
what you're saying SOUNDS right - so what's the point of this which is always at the top of the wireshark FAQ
If wireshark can capture all of the layer 2 traffic then thats cool - and I might go back and try it again. the last time I tried I didn't get anything lower than layer3 and even then I didn't get anything apart from my own stuff (i.e. not promiscuous).
I don't believe wireshark/ethereal can get to 802.11 without paying for a plugin from cace, at least not promiscuously (which is all I care about)
But apart from 802.11, wireshark seems to capture WAY more than this one. So the only real question is does it do a better job or does it do it a better way? Because if it is "better" (in whatever way) then adding protocols is just a dissection task.
>>Technically, wasn't America founded by the Native Americans?
>No, because the native Americans never founded a country here.
just several Nations
So a little correction. Founded on genocidal invading puratins
>First of all, the U.S. was not founded by Puritans.
ummmmm - nope.
sure the "Puratins" and "Pilgrams" were not identical. but you have to be pretty heavily into your 16thC religious sects to notice the difference. From my point in space & time they are near enough to the same bunch of nutters.
so - if you don't think the Pilgrams founded the US then fine. But otherwise you are way wrong.
I'm concerned about all of these. Cisco, HP-UX, AIX, the lot.
BTW if a linux user believes that myth you raise and isn't regularly using apt-get update; apt-get upgrade then they get what they deserve. No OS is bug free, I don't trust OSX, AIX or Linux any more than MS.
>Last year MS dropped support for all operating systems except XP SP2 and Vista. >This includes security patches.
yeah... kinda
what that means is that they stopped developing patches for the OS but the patches that were developed are still available. I accessed both win98 and win2k patches last month. And last year I even got a NT4 box installed and patched but that was a mission!!
Is apple still developing updates for system7? How about a kernel patch for the kernel version pre 2002?
I remember IBM refusing to support a version of AIX that was 18 months out of date (well that was partly a SLA thing but the end result was the same).
I'm sick to death of defending MS against anti-MS FUD... but I'm even more sick of irrational and inconsistent bashing of one OS when other OS's don't meet the target either. Basically - FUD sucks in every way possible
>Old apps are NOT old machines. I want to run VISTA on a 486, because I can run Linux on it.
Yeah MS are SOOO bad. Of course... no one would want to USE a linux box on a 486. And what's the chance of running tiger on a mac classic or a LC2 (which dates from the 486 I think - or do we go baqck to classic?).
You know - the only linux box I've seen running on a 486 for years was a dedicated DNS server running slackware sitting beside a dedicated file server running NT4.
In both cases my advise was "for goodness sake upgrade to something that's supported"
>The company that abandons the users on older machines, to help their customers sell new machines.
Oh come on - if you're going to bash MS then at least bash them for VALID reasons
Microsoft support legacy customers to the detriment of new ones. Most of the problems with each release of their OS comes from trying to support old old old apps.
I wish they'd abandon their legacy users much more often than they do. Shit - I can still run turbo pascal for windows 3.1 forgods sake - that's just nuts!!!
shame you can't keep a stable version of windows tho - I seem to manage to keep hundereds (multiple hundreds) running just fine even with students at a college screwing with them.
Maybe you need a grandpa to hold your hand. With the emphasis on ROI and TCO, businesses wouldn't stick with MS as the dominant OS if it had the track record of YOUR systems.
Have fun in the sandbox baby-boy. Another 10 years and you might be ready for enterprise.
BTW if you want to fuck with my system then be my guest. My IP address is 127.0.0.1
>You have to ask yourself why there is no decent competition to Microsoft Office > (though I'd argue that for most users there are plenty of options).
most people would be happy with wordpad. It's when you need real functionality that everything starts sucking so you choose the least suckiest - which for my money is MS today.
>Microsoft has systematically, sometimes illegally, destroyed the competition. >Now they have a monopoly there is no incentive to improve their product.
That is EXACTLY what people said about Lotus123 (spreadsheet) and Wordperfect (word processing) back in the 90's. I argued really strongly back then that WP was so entrenched that NOTHING would shift it and that innovation was being stifled. As for something competing with Lotus - that was unthinkable. Their dominance really was that strong.
While I do believe that MS has superior products - I agree that the dominance stifles development. However there are examples where the market has moved in the past - and it could again. In fact it probably will. I used to be as critical about Excel and MS word as I now am about OpenOffice. I could see MS falling behind one day - but I've been saying that for years now. I don't expect that day to come next year.
thinking about it - there's STILL a couple of things that I could do in Wordperfect which I can't do in MS-Word (or oo). And it was great having direct access to the markup codes - almost like latex.
Don't blame the OS for your screwed up installation. Do you REALLY think that linux doesn't have this kind of crap. My last kernel panic was about two months ago - I think I was doing something with USB.
Maybe I'll buy the MAC claim - but I've seen people screw up linux royally because they didn't know what they were doing or they were trying to do something that linux is just flaky with.
My point is that with an OS you shouldn't NEED to know anything about it. The best OS should be COMPLETELY transparent to the user. The closest I see so far is with cars and EFT-POS machines. A good OS demands nothing of the user, absolutly nothing. Windows is WAY ahead of linux in this. MAC may be beyond the horizon but it's been a decade since I've used it.
If your PC is acting like that then fix it. Even if it takes a reinstall. Either some software is screwed (done a spy/virus/rootkit scan lately???) or you have dodgey hardware (try a RAM test). But don't confuse your situation with normal behavior of windows.
>It depends entirely on what you are used to. >Where you would use Visio I would use AutoCAD or another drawing package
yeah - possibly.
but I would only use visio for diagrams and flowcharts. Would you really use autocad to document a network? I sure as hell wouldn't use visio to do floor plans, just because it CAN doesn't mean that it was designed for that. Visio overlaps with autocad in the same way that a Desktop Publishing programme overlaps with a word-processor (and I've seen people use pagemaker etc as their main editor... weird). Similar domain but very different strengths.
But I really don't know autocad. Maybe it's as good for diagramming as it is for architecture and engineering drawings.
>Where I object to Microsoft is in their shoddy products.
yeah I hate shoddy products - which is why I stick to MS products even though I know Linux quite well and regularly try compeditors in other apps. I want an OS that isn't in my face - I want it to run tasks without me having to KNOW i am running an OS... MS is the least shoddy there (Mac may be better - i can't get hold of it).
I am not one of the 90% who use 10% of MS Office. I miss tonns of features when I've had to use other ones - yeah they are good for plebs that write notes and call them docs - but OO is always plaything catchup. Visio is WAAY more useful than any other product I've tried. but I'm used to the enterprise version with network & NDS discovery etc.
Linux wins hands down on the back end stuff - no worries there. But there desktop OS and apps lead the way, they are NOT following (with the exception of their crappy web browser).
Of course - because I actually evaluate things and dare to end up concluding that MS is fine, this will be modded as a troll - but hell the entire original topic is a troll. The parent is actually quite reasonable compareed to the rest of this crap.
Slashdot Mirror
>Apple would just include a "Run me first" DVD >that would install everything without prompts. Eh? and why do you think MS wouldn't do that too? Scripted installs don't take long and are hard are agnostic in the main.
perhaps your IT dept is working their asses off keeping the projects running which actually have a business case - while you try to subvert and undermine them on personal "i want it" projects which do NOT have managerial buy-in
I'm wrong - in fact I get the feeling that it's now important that MD5 is NOT used. NIST (an authority when it comes to forensic investigations) do *not* recommend the use of MD5 checksums. The grandparent was perfectly correct. A decent summary (sorry PDF) is here
IAMAL nor a forensic investigator - but I believe that any investigator worth their salt wouldn't care and might even agree with your suggestion.
However MD5 is perfectly fine for checksum to verify file integrity. Remember - they are not talking about using MD5 to encrypt the data - they are using it to make a "finger print" of the image so that there can be no claim of tampering with the evidence. As such - it MIGHT be possible to have a collision, but the use of a collision is pretty limited. The chance is pretty remote of setting me up by replacing my pictures of my cat LuLu with metalica-album.mp3, and having the file checksums be the same.
Global warming, middle east is a major oil, the vikings are marching (does Linus count?), the 10th crusade is underway, there's quite a bit of starvation around the world with water famines on the way, plagues threaten us all (bird flu), oh - the global life expectancy has doubled so that's an improvement.
But all in all not a lot has changed has it?!
Yes muggle. No need to fret, "Harry is fictional".
There's no such thing as wizards we^h^h They don't exist.
this is slahdot. You didn't actually READ the article did you? no-one else does.
aahh that makes sense.
Yeah - I meant monitor not promiscuous. You can see I haven't done a lot with 802.11
thanks for that. Most of the decent network monitoring tools are linux, I should have tried that out first
cheers
yup - and that's the free market, competition and capitalism at work for you.
I'm just not sure what it is you're suggesting as a better alternative. Removing all barriers would undoubtedly improve the profitability of US businesses. Perhaps that's what you are advocating.
ok
what you're saying SOUNDS right - so what's the point of this which is always at the top of the wireshark FAQ
If wireshark can capture all of the layer 2 traffic then thats cool - and I might go back and try it again. the last time I tried I didn't get anything lower than layer3 and even then I didn't get anything apart from my own stuff (i.e. not promiscuous).
Are you getting something different?
I don't believe wireshark/ethereal can get to 802.11 without paying for a plugin from cace, at least not promiscuously (which is all I care about)
But apart from 802.11, wireshark seems to capture WAY more than this one. So the only real question is does it do a better job or does it do it a better way? Because if it is "better" (in whatever way) then adding protocols is just a dissection task.
I suspect that it's not that hot really.
>>Technically, wasn't America founded by the Native Americans? >No, because the native Americans never founded a country here. just several Nations So a little correction. Founded on genocidal invading puratins
>First of all, the U.S. was not founded by Puritans.
ummmmm - nope.
sure the "Puratins" and "Pilgrams" were not identical. but you have to be pretty heavily into your 16thC religious sects to notice the difference. From my point in space & time they are near enough to the same bunch of nutters.
so - if you don't think the Pilgrams founded the US then fine. But otherwise you are way wrong.
He was part of Bob. Not as a paper clip but the dog assistant was there.
>It's puritanism gone mad.
that's a redundancy.
BTW if a linux user believes that myth you raise and isn't regularly using apt-get update; apt-get upgrade then they get what they deserve. No OS is bug free, I don't trust OSX, AIX or Linux any more than MS.
>Last year MS dropped support for all operating systems except XP SP2 and Vista.
... kinda
... but I'm even more sick of irrational and inconsistent bashing of one OS when other OS's don't meet the target either. Basically - FUD sucks in every way possible
>This includes security patches.
yeah
what that means is that they stopped developing patches for the OS but the patches that were developed are still available. I accessed both win98 and win2k patches last month. And last year I even got a NT4 box installed and patched but that was a mission!!
Is apple still developing updates for system7? How about a kernel patch for the kernel version pre 2002?
I remember IBM refusing to support a version of AIX that was 18 months out of date (well that was partly a SLA thing but the end result was the same).
I'm sick to death of defending MS against anti-MS FUD
>Old apps are NOT old machines. I want to run VISTA on a 486, because I can run Linux on it.
... no one would want to USE a linux box on a 486. And what's the chance of running tiger on a mac classic or a LC2 (which dates from the 486 I think - or do we go baqck to classic?).
Yeah MS are SOOO bad. Of course
You know - the only linux box I've seen running on a 486 for years was a dedicated DNS server running slackware sitting beside a dedicated file server running NT4.
In both cases my advise was "for goodness sake upgrade to something that's supported"
>The company that abandons the users on older machines, to help their customers sell new machines.
Oh come on - if you're going to bash MS then at least bash them for VALID reasons
Microsoft support legacy customers to the detriment of new ones. Most of the problems with each release of their OS comes from trying to support old old old apps.
I wish they'd abandon their legacy users much more often than they do. Shit - I can still run turbo pascal for windows 3.1 forgods sake - that's just nuts!!!
It's amazing how fast the year flies. It seems like Christmas was just this week and we're already at April 1.
oooo you da man!!!
shame you can't keep a stable version of windows tho - I seem to manage to keep hundereds (multiple hundreds) running just fine even with students at a college screwing with them.
Maybe you need a grandpa to hold your hand. With the emphasis on ROI and TCO, businesses wouldn't stick with MS as the dominant OS if it had the track record of YOUR systems.
Have fun in the sandbox baby-boy. Another 10 years and you might be ready for enterprise.
BTW if you want to fuck with my system then be my guest. My IP address is 127.0.0.1
Have fun.
>You have to ask yourself why there is no decent competition to Microsoft Office
> (though I'd argue that for most users there are plenty of options).
most people would be happy with wordpad. It's when you need real functionality that everything starts sucking so you choose the least suckiest - which for my money is MS today.
>Microsoft has systematically, sometimes illegally, destroyed the competition.
>Now they have a monopoly there is no incentive to improve their product.
That is EXACTLY what people said about Lotus123 (spreadsheet) and Wordperfect (word processing) back in the 90's. I argued really strongly back then that WP was so entrenched that NOTHING would shift it and that innovation was being stifled. As for something competing with Lotus - that was unthinkable. Their dominance really was that strong.
While I do believe that MS has superior products - I agree that the dominance stifles development. However there are examples where the market has moved in the past - and it could again. In fact it probably will. I used to be as critical about Excel and MS word as I now am about OpenOffice. I could see MS falling behind one day - but I've been saying that for years now. I don't expect that day to come next year.
thinking about it - there's STILL a couple of things that I could do in Wordperfect which I can't do in MS-Word (or oo). And it was great having direct access to the markup codes - almost like latex.
oh please!
Don't blame the OS for your screwed up installation. Do you REALLY think that linux doesn't have this kind of crap. My last kernel panic was about two months ago - I think I was doing something with USB.
Maybe I'll buy the MAC claim - but I've seen people screw up linux royally because they didn't know what they were doing or they were trying to do something that linux is just flaky with.
My point is that with an OS you shouldn't NEED to know anything about it. The best OS should be COMPLETELY transparent to the user. The closest I see so far is with cars and EFT-POS machines. A good OS demands nothing of the user, absolutly nothing. Windows is WAY ahead of linux in this. MAC may be beyond the horizon but it's been a decade since I've used it.
If your PC is acting like that then fix it. Even if it takes a reinstall. Either some software is screwed (done a spy/virus/rootkit scan lately???) or you have dodgey hardware (try a RAM test). But don't confuse your situation with normal behavior of windows.
>It depends entirely on what you are used to.
... weird). Similar domain but very different strengths.
>Where you would use Visio I would use AutoCAD or another drawing package
yeah - possibly.
but I would only use visio for diagrams and flowcharts. Would you really use autocad to document a network? I sure as hell wouldn't use visio to do floor plans, just because it CAN doesn't mean that it was designed for that. Visio overlaps with autocad in the same way that a Desktop Publishing programme overlaps with a word-processor (and I've seen people use pagemaker etc as their main editor
But I really don't know autocad. Maybe it's as good for diagramming as it is for architecture and engineering drawings.
>Where I object to Microsoft is in their shoddy products.
... MS is the least shoddy there (Mac may be better - i can't get hold of it).
yeah I hate shoddy products - which is why I stick to MS products even though I know Linux quite well and regularly try compeditors in other apps. I want an OS that isn't in my face - I want it to run tasks without me having to KNOW i am running an OS
I am not one of the 90% who use 10% of MS Office. I miss tonns of features when I've had to use other ones - yeah they are good for plebs that write notes and call them docs - but OO is always plaything catchup. Visio is WAAY more useful than any other product I've tried. but I'm used to the enterprise version with network & NDS discovery etc.
Linux wins hands down on the back end stuff - no worries there. But there desktop OS and apps lead the way, they are NOT following (with the exception of their crappy web browser).
Of course - because I actually evaluate things and dare to end up concluding that MS is fine, this will be modded as a troll - but hell the entire original topic is a troll. The parent is actually quite reasonable compareed to the rest of this crap.