The whole point of a bank (at least originally) was to keep money safe by making it difficult to access. Through the years we have demanded that banks make it easier and more convenient to access our money, and now we are paying the price. Security and convenience are inversely proportional to one another. It is a mystery to me why we, as a civilization can't seem to grasp this basic concept.
This isn't about stifling competition. It's about making sure that there are no fake "Genuine HP Inkjet Cartridges" out there. If the company making the competing product wants to brand their stuff "Jimmy's Ink" or "Bob's Toner" that's one thing. If Jimmy slaps an HP label on there and then the thing leaks all over the place, it's HP that winds up looking bad, and in some cases is held liable because they can't really prove they didn't make it. Preventing counterfeits is not the same as preventing competing products.
So why not just point each user's "My Documents" folder to a network share? This will keep the profile much smaller. I guess I just took it for granted that this was a standard practice. I've done it for years.
How is this insightful? Please point out the law that requires Microsoft's support for this bill to get passed. Microsoft decided to abstain from helping fund the lobbyists who are arguing in favor of the bill. That's all there is to it.
The motherboard argument is a strawman. When was the last time you got to pick out which motherboard you got in a Dell machine? You don't. You take what they offer, simple as that. The burden of selecting a stable chipset would be on Dell, not the purchaser.
What BitMovers has done is essentially donated money (in the form of 'gratis' software) for Linus to use, but donated no code whatsoever.
IIRC, Larry McVoy is one of the original 100 Linux kernel developers from the early 90s. I don't think it's fair to characterize him as a freeloader who is riding the coat tails of the Linux kernel.
The problem is that su is in and of itself a security problem in many organizations. The admin should not be able to assume the role of a user without something that tips the user off to their actions. Windows forces you to reset the user's password in order to log on as them. The fact that their password has been changed will tip them off, in addition to providing a clear audit trail of the administrative priviledges used. In some systems, the admin actually has less authorization to access specific data than many of their users. The mere existence of the root user is problematic for any number of reasons, which is why trusted systems have largely steered away from this.
Techies generally have no clue when it comes to things like this...myself included. The best policy is to simply specify the equipment you need and then let the beancounters figure out how to pay for it. That's why they exist. It's not your job to project revenue, track depreciation of assets, understand the tax code, etc, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
A couple of Marine divisions is pretty much 2/3rds of the USMC...so um, yeah...you're probably right.
Wow...all that on the first post. Nice prepared statement.
I think you just reinforced the bat-shit ugly statement.
It's ANWR...but not that it matters when you're just mimicking.
The whole point of a bank (at least originally) was to keep money safe by making it difficult to access. Through the years we have demanded that banks make it easier and more convenient to access our money, and now we are paying the price. Security and convenience are inversely proportional to one another. It is a mystery to me why we, as a civilization can't seem to grasp this basic concept.
best
post
ever
That is all.
This isn't about stifling competition. It's about making sure that there are no fake "Genuine HP Inkjet Cartridges" out there. If the company making the competing product wants to brand their stuff "Jimmy's Ink" or "Bob's Toner" that's one thing. If Jimmy slaps an HP label on there and then the thing leaks all over the place, it's HP that winds up looking bad, and in some cases is held liable because they can't really prove they didn't make it. Preventing counterfeits is not the same as preventing competing products.
XTS-300 and 400 are hardware platforms...overpriced PCs actually. STOP OS is the operating system.
So what you're saying, essentially, is "Well, duh!"
You must be new here.
You really have no clue what group policies are, do you?
So why not just point each user's "My Documents" folder to a network share? This will keep the profile much smaller. I guess I just took it for granted that this was a standard practice. I've done it for years.
Nevermind. I see what you were saying now. Damn this is getting confusing!
SCO bought Unixware from Novell, not Sun. Nice try though.
How is this insightful? Please point out the law that requires Microsoft's support for this bill to get passed. Microsoft decided to abstain from helping fund the lobbyists who are arguing in favor of the bill. That's all there is to it.
The motherboard argument is a strawman. When was the last time you got to pick out which motherboard you got in a Dell machine? You don't. You take what they offer, simple as that. The burden of selecting a stable chipset would be on Dell, not the purchaser.
What BitMovers has done is essentially donated money (in the form of 'gratis' software) for Linus to use, but donated no code whatsoever.
IIRC, Larry McVoy is one of the original 100 Linux kernel developers from the early 90s. I don't think it's fair to characterize him as a freeloader who is riding the coat tails of the Linux kernel.
The domain jumps you!!!
Same here. Over 5 years of trouble free service. I guess we're the luck ones.
The problem is that su is in and of itself a security problem in many organizations. The admin should not be able to assume the role of a user without something that tips the user off to their actions. Windows forces you to reset the user's password in order to log on as them. The fact that their password has been changed will tip them off, in addition to providing a clear audit trail of the administrative priviledges used. In some systems, the admin actually has less authorization to access specific data than many of their users. The mere existence of the root user is problematic for any number of reasons, which is why trusted systems have largely steered away from this.
Techies generally have no clue when it comes to things like this...myself included. The best policy is to simply specify the equipment you need and then let the beancounters figure out how to pay for it. That's why they exist. It's not your job to project revenue, track depreciation of assets, understand the tax code, etc, etc.
Exactly.
Have you actually come up with something in the past that is of significant value or is this just a matter of principles?
You do realize that Slackware has been around since 1993 right?