I believe it was Interix (not InterOp as sibling post has it).
Interix was the product name, which survives today as part of SFU 3.5. The original vendor was Softway Systems. They wrote Interix; Microsoft bought Softway and rolled Interix 2.2SP1 into SFU 2.0.
The confusion, I guess, is that InterOp systems bought the domain interix.com. They now sell util ports to interix and interix-related services. But AFAIK InterOp had nothing to do with SFU/Interix itself.
So is backward compatibility with XBox 1 titles going to be 100% if you have a HD!!????
My guess is it'll be best-effort - they'll write enough to emulate most (if not all) of the original xbox but they'll only do serious testing of the most popular games. It'd be a huge testing effort to cover them all.
Oh, and I'll add: I understand from old posts on the GCC list that MS intend to continue supporting Interix, and they're developing Interix 4 (with assistance from Ada Core Technologies) which will include 64-bit platform support.
Microsoft bought Softway Systems, the developers of Interix, and have crippled Interix and released it as Services for Unix.
Crippled it? Uh, no. Quite the opposite: they've developed it into something better.
OK, I'll concede I never used *Softway's* Interix but I did use MS's Interix 2.2SP1, which I understand was basically the final Softway version. It was a bare-bones to-the-POSIX-spec implementation - and I mean bare. Even GNU make didn't even build out of the box because it assumed int main(argc, argv, envptr) where the envptr isn't standard. Virtually no OSS would build on it out-of-the-box.
Interix 3 and 3.5 (which MS now give away for free, BTW) are much friendlier environments to use. The base install is basically the same - you don't get a lot installed, although there's still the GNU tools and GNU-ness warning, but it's a much nicer environment to program for: fuller libraries, thread support even.
My interest in Interix nowadays is as a platform for GCC, and I am GCC-paperworked with the goal of resurrecting and tuning the Interix support. But I don't have the time really:-/ I've got a few proto-patches but that's about it.
Personally, every couple of years I ignite some paper in a can and hold it under the detector to make sure it actually detects smoke. A test-button may test the alarm, but what about the smoke detecting part?
IIRC, it uses beta radiation across a small gap to a radiation detector. Smoke absorbs the beta radiation so the alarm goes off if it stops detecting. So if the beta source fails, the alarm should go off.
The only ways I can see the smoke detection part failing would be if the detector component somehow gets itself locked on "yes there's radiation" or if the beta source falls across the gap so there's effectively no gap between the source and the detector. I doubt either's very likely.
It is not necessary to seize anything to do this. At most all they need to do is mirror the drive, which can be done without even removing it.
They might be able to forensically recover old deleted log data, etc., from the original drive that they couldn't do from a copy.
OK, they should have let Rackspace mirror it onto a spare drive before they walked off with the original, though, so they could keep running the site from the mirror.
maybe i'm just a little young (23) but why would you worry about the waiter or waitress at a restaurant?
Same thing basically: they get time alone with your credit card. And they can make casual conversation to get other details out of you, e.g. town, even street, where you live.
As for the argument "You have to be lucky always, we only have to be lucky once" - that is often heard but is shows a total lack of simple maths. It is mathematically unsound if you do not take the probabilities into account. "Once lucky at 0.00000000001% chance" is a lot LESS likely than "1000 times lucky at 99% chance".
But they're not *independent* probabilities. In fact, it's reasonable to assume in that model that the IRA's probability and Thatcher's/Britain's probability sum to 1.
What bullshit. And how long until someone uses this study to "prove" that women are less intelligent than men (because on average they are smaller and thus have smaller brains),
IIRC, they're incomparable because we have different brain composition. Basically there's two types of matter in the brain: grey matter, which is neuron-dense and the primary intelligence matter, and white matter which is basically sparse neurons coated with fat. On average women have 10% more grey matter (the intelligence stuff) but men's brains are bigger because we have much more white matter.
Why? The usual theories go back to man's primal role as hunter-gatherer: our brains have a higher fat content so they're better padded - our brains are built to survive head impact.
Of course once they'd identified a physiological difference then everyone jumped on the bandwagon with crackpot theories for all the old gender prejudices, e.g. men's greater white matter content allowed for better distribution of computation across the brain which means we're better at reading maps. And stuff like that.
This is from Microsoft Research, not from Microsoft. Although they share a name, and some of the same goals, they are different entities. It really has nothing to do with MS Engineers.
Except presumably MS own all the IP, and can take the ideas and code if they want. (For example, MSR implemented Microsoft's IPV6 stack that is shipped with XP and 2003.)
And presumably MS steer MSR's research, and MSR are given more time to come up with these ideas than MS engineers assigned to a shipping product.
The implication is that Microsoft is doing a lot of talk with little follow through.
Yes, I know what it means.
The paper is from the IEEE Infocom in March. It's three months old. Sure, if it were a year old you could call it vaporware but I think it's a little early to call names just yet.
You should be banned from slashdot for recommending this POS. SBS is complete and utter garbage. It has Exchange\Domain Controller\SQL\File server all on one box.
and ISA Server, and Sharepoint in the latest version, and a nice shared fax solution IIRC.
Yes, it's deliberately crippled against scaling and yes it has some drawbacks but that's sort of the point: it's an all-in-one solution for a small business that doesn't have lots of money to throw around.
It runs like ass and if one breaks they all break and your entire business is down.
It does need fairly powerful hardware *if* you choose to run all the services. You don't have to.
I agree, it's safer to have the load split amongst many boxes and extra redundant boxes too but, like many things, you get what you pay for: it's a good solution at its price point. Combined with good backups and spare hardware you'll avoid significant downtime anyway.
We've run SBS here since 4.5 and we're mostly happy with it. Yes, it'd be nice to split exchange off onto a separate box but we can cope as it is. We've never seen one of the services take the system down apart from the occasional (brief) full IO load.
Though not well known, the MS action pack is perfekt for small companies. Contains virtual any server -W2K3, Exchange, SQL... - and 10 copies of all office products and XP. And it goes for a 360EUR a year(in germany). No hooks whatsoever (apart from not beein allowed to resell it).
Neat. More details here. IIRC, last time I looked at that the software was for sales and marketing demonstration only, but it allows covers internal use too. You need to register your company with their partner program, but that's no big deal - you don't need to qualify as a certified partner to get it anymore.
I stand corrected. IIRC it was only 50 for one of the previous versions.
PS. I haven't used Windows 2003 SBS, but 2000 SBS Server ran like ass.
Yeah, you're right - you do need reasonably powerful hardware (and plenty of ram!) if you're going to run *all* the services. Having them all on the one box is quite limiting, but if you want to split them up you have to pay for the full versions of the servers. If you can cope with a single box, it's good value.
It's not uncommon to upgrade servers either by changing/adding hardware or just replacing the whole machine which can cause you to have to reactivate Windows.
In my experience, XP doesn't survive a complete-machine-swap very well anyway - it's safest to do a clean re-install. Even changing the motherboard can kill it - I guess it's got chipset-specific drivers configured with no fallback to generic drivers. In that case, if you have to reinstall anyway, reactivation isn't that big of a deal.
I'm the only IT guy, and my company uses a windows2000 server with active directory and such on a Dell. Runs fine.
Assuming you're under fifty employees, have you looked at MS's Small Business Server? For about the price of the server OS on its own you get all the big server products provided you run them all on the same box.
Granted, there's not a lot to make SBS 2003 a must-have over SBS 2000 apart from:
1. Exchange 2003's Outlook Web Access is much nicer than 2000's 2. ISA Server 2004 instead of ISA 2000 (if you get the SBS 2003 Premium edition and apply SP1)
and they're just nice-to-haves really, along with all the other Server 2003 nice-to-haves.
Also note that Red Hat sells support, try buying that from Microsoft and see how cheap it is, it'll cost you $200 a phone call or you can get some package deal for something like $1200 a year.
It's cheaper than that (half-price?) if you're happy to deal with them online rather than by telephone. And refunded if you've got a bona-fide bug. And you get free support incidents with the larger developer packages and from the Certified Partner program.
And, although I've only used the free ones, I'd generally be happy to pay 100 bucks for the service I get, especially considering consultant rates. Now I'm sure Red Hat are just as professional and pleasant to deal with but I wouldn't call MS is expensive.
Throw away the driver discs, microsoft doesn't make the drivers, the least they can do is provide them with their os.
They do, sort of.
The problem is the long release/testing cycle that major Windows releases go through means that all the bundled drivers are six months old. If your hardware is six months older than the latest service pack, and the manufacturer has WHQL drivers, then Windows should automatically recognise the hardware.
Don't they already have corporate https proxies? If the man in the middle is The Man in the middle... well... they can do all sorts of stuff. I should read up on this...
AFAIK, https proxying is transparent: the client sends the proxy something like
CONNECT slashdot.org:443 HTTP/1.1
to get a forwarded TCP connection to the HTTPS server at the other end; the proxy never sees the HTTPS traffic in clear.
Yes the proxy can perform an MITM attack here but they'd have to dynamically fake SSL certificates for every site you connect to, and even then you'd see they were all signed by the corporate CA if you checked. Unless, of course, they rename their corporate CA "Verisign Trust Root" or similar, or have a few and mix it up a bit. That'd be a neat attack:-)
Five? That's the same as the Windows NT one, unless you're picking that C:\Windows is different from C:\WinNT:-p OMG, on Small Business Server 4.5 it was under C:\WinNT.SBS\Profiles by default! So that's six is it?:-p
You shouldn't care where these things are anyway - you should use the API functions (SHGetSpecialFolderPath?) to find them. Remember the string "Documents and Settings" gets localised!
Slashdot Mirror
I believe it was Interix (not InterOp as sibling post has it).
Interix was the product name, which survives today as part of SFU 3.5. The original vendor was Softway Systems. They wrote Interix; Microsoft bought Softway and rolled Interix 2.2SP1 into SFU 2.0.
The confusion, I guess, is that InterOp systems bought the domain interix.com. They now sell util ports to interix and interix-related services. But AFAIK InterOp had nothing to do with SFU/Interix itself.
So is backward compatibility with XBox 1 titles going to be 100% if you have a HD!!????
My guess is it'll be best-effort - they'll write enough to emulate most (if not all) of the original xbox but they'll only do serious testing of the most popular games. It'd be a huge testing effort to cover them all.
Oh, and I'll add: I understand from old posts on the GCC list that MS intend to continue supporting Interix, and they're developing Interix 4 (with assistance from Ada Core Technologies) which will include 64-bit platform support.
(found in metamods)
:-/ I've got a few proto-patches but that's about it.
Microsoft bought Softway Systems, the developers of Interix, and have crippled Interix and released it as Services for Unix.
Crippled it? Uh, no. Quite the opposite: they've developed it into something better.
OK, I'll concede I never used *Softway's* Interix but I did use MS's Interix 2.2SP1, which I understand was basically the final Softway version. It was a bare-bones to-the-POSIX-spec implementation - and I mean bare. Even GNU make didn't even build out of the box because it assumed int main(argc, argv, envptr) where the envptr isn't standard. Virtually no OSS would build on it out-of-the-box.
Interix 3 and 3.5 (which MS now give away for free, BTW) are much friendlier environments to use. The base install is basically the same - you don't get a lot installed, although there's still the GNU tools and GNU-ness warning, but it's a much nicer environment to program for: fuller libraries, thread support even.
My interest in Interix nowadays is as a platform for GCC, and I am GCC-paperworked with the goal of resurrecting and tuning the Interix support. But I don't have the time really
You don't drop support, but nobody is much interested in picking it up either.
Au contraire, the SCO maintainer is still active.
Personally, every couple of years I ignite some paper in a can and hold it under the detector to make sure it actually detects smoke. A test-button may test the alarm, but what about the smoke detecting part?
IIRC, it uses beta radiation across a small gap to a radiation detector. Smoke absorbs the beta radiation so the alarm goes off if it stops detecting. So if the beta source fails, the alarm should go off.
The only ways I can see the smoke detection part failing would be if the detector component somehow gets itself locked on "yes there's radiation" or if the beta source falls across the gap so there's effectively no gap between the source and the detector. I doubt either's very likely.
It is not necessary to seize anything to do this. At most all they need to do is mirror the drive, which can be done without even removing it.
They might be able to forensically recover old deleted log data, etc., from the original drive that they couldn't do from a copy.
OK, they should have let Rackspace mirror it onto a spare drive before they walked off with the original, though, so they could keep running the site from the mirror.
maybe i'm just a little young (23) but why would you worry about the waiter or waitress at a restaurant?
Same thing basically: they get time alone with your credit card. And they can make casual conversation to get other details out of you, e.g. town, even street, where you live.
As for the argument "You have to be lucky always, we only have to be lucky once" - that is often heard but is shows a total lack of simple maths. It is mathematically unsound if you do not take the probabilities into account. "Once lucky at 0.00000000001% chance" is a lot LESS likely than "1000 times lucky at 99% chance".
But they're not *independent* probabilities. In fact, it's reasonable to assume in that model that the IRA's probability and Thatcher's/Britain's probability sum to 1.
(found in metamods)
What bullshit. And how long until someone uses this study to "prove" that women are less intelligent than men (because on average they are smaller and thus have smaller brains),
IIRC, they're incomparable because we have different brain composition. Basically there's two types of matter in the brain: grey matter, which is neuron-dense and the primary intelligence matter, and white matter which is basically sparse neurons coated with fat. On average women have 10% more grey matter (the intelligence stuff) but men's brains are bigger because we have much more white matter.
Why? The usual theories go back to man's primal role as hunter-gatherer: our brains have a higher fat content so they're better padded - our brains are built to survive head impact.
Of course once they'd identified a physiological difference then everyone jumped on the bandwagon with crackpot theories for all the old gender prejudices, e.g. men's greater white matter content allowed for better distribution of computation across the brain which means we're better at reading maps. And stuff like that.
This is from Microsoft Research, not from Microsoft. Although they share a name, and some of the same goals, they are different entities. It really has nothing to do with MS Engineers.
Except presumably MS own all the IP, and can take the ideas and code if they want. (For example, MSR implemented Microsoft's IPV6 stack that is shipped with XP and 2003.)
And presumably MS steer MSR's research, and MSR are given more time to come up with these ideas than MS engineers assigned to a shipping product.
The implication is that Microsoft is doing a lot of talk with little follow through.
Yes, I know what it means.
The paper is from the IEEE Infocom in March. It's three months old. Sure, if it were a year old you could call it vaporware but I think it's a little early to call names just yet.
Or perhaps you are referring to these completely unfounded claims (from TFA):
I agree, he has a right to comment on that.
Yup, that's a guy bashing closed doors alright.
But to call the Avalanche research vapourware because he hasn't seen an implementation *is* bashing MS's closed doors.
I think they're saying you getand join_together.exe installs spyware as well as assembling the movie file.
You should be banned from slashdot for recommending this POS. SBS is complete and utter garbage. It has Exchange\Domain Controller\SQL\File server all on one box.
and ISA Server, and Sharepoint in the latest version, and a nice shared fax solution IIRC.
Yes, it's deliberately crippled against scaling and yes it has some drawbacks but that's sort of the point: it's an all-in-one solution for a small business that doesn't have lots of money to throw around.
It runs like ass and if one breaks they all break and your entire business is down.
It does need fairly powerful hardware *if* you choose to run all the services. You don't have to.
I agree, it's safer to have the load split amongst many boxes and extra redundant boxes too but, like many things, you get what you pay for: it's a good solution at its price point. Combined with good backups and spare hardware you'll avoid significant downtime anyway.
We've run SBS here since 4.5 and we're mostly happy with it. Yes, it'd be nice to split exchange off onto a separate box but we can cope as it is. We've never seen one of the services take the system down apart from the occasional (brief) full IO load.
There is no clustering allowed with SBS.
You're allowed a backup domain controller IIRC.
Though not well known, the MS action pack is perfekt for small companies. Contains virtual any server -W2K3, Exchange, SQL... - and 10 copies of all office products and XP. And it goes for a 360EUR a year(in germany). No hooks whatsoever (apart from not beein allowed to resell it).
Neat. More details here. IIRC, last time I looked at that the software was for sales and marketing demonstration only, but it allows covers internal use too. You need to register your company with their partner program, but that's no big deal - you don't need to qualify as a certified partner to get it anymore.
Under 75 Users....
I stand corrected. IIRC it was only 50 for one of the previous versions.
PS. I haven't used Windows 2003 SBS, but 2000 SBS Server ran like ass.
Yeah, you're right - you do need reasonably powerful hardware (and plenty of ram!) if you're going to run *all* the services. Having them all on the one box is quite limiting, but if you want to split them up you have to pay for the full versions of the servers. If you can cope with a single box, it's good value.
It's not uncommon to upgrade servers either by changing/adding hardware or just replacing the whole machine which can cause you to have to reactivate Windows.
In my experience, XP doesn't survive a complete-machine-swap very well anyway - it's safest to do a clean re-install. Even changing the motherboard can kill it - I guess it's got chipset-specific drivers configured with no fallback to generic drivers. In that case, if you have to reinstall anyway, reactivation isn't that big of a deal.
I'm the only IT guy, and my company uses a windows2000 server with active directory and such on a Dell. Runs fine.
Assuming you're under fifty employees, have you looked at MS's Small Business Server? For about the price of the server OS on its own you get all the big server products provided you run them all on the same box.
Granted, there's not a lot to make SBS 2003 a must-have over SBS 2000 apart from:
1. Exchange 2003's Outlook Web Access is much nicer than 2000's
2. ISA Server 2004 instead of ISA 2000 (if you get the SBS 2003 Premium edition and apply SP1)
and they're just nice-to-haves really, along with all the other Server 2003 nice-to-haves.
Why doesn't MS try a subscription based scheme? A small amount for installation of the OS, and then a renewal fee each year?
They already do.
Also note that Red Hat sells support, try buying that from Microsoft and see how cheap it is, it'll cost you $200 a phone call or you can get some package deal for something like $1200 a year.
It's cheaper than that (half-price?) if you're happy to deal with them online rather than by telephone. And refunded if you've got a bona-fide bug. And you get free support incidents with the larger developer packages and from the Certified Partner program.
And, although I've only used the free ones, I'd generally be happy to pay 100 bucks for the service I get, especially considering consultant rates. Now I'm sure Red Hat are just as professional and pleasant to deal with but I wouldn't call MS is expensive.
Uhm... You're a bit off there
OK, what if you read that as "ongoing contributor"?
Even so, I'm not sure I'd stand behind that but they're certainly one of the bigger players in terms of contribution in the last few years.
Throw away the driver discs, microsoft doesn't make the drivers, the least they can do is provide them with their os.
They do, sort of.
The problem is the long release/testing cycle that major Windows releases go through means that all the bundled drivers are six months old. If your hardware is six months older than the latest service pack, and the manufacturer has WHQL drivers, then Windows should automatically recognise the hardware.
Don't they already have corporate https proxies? If the man in the middle is The Man in the middle ... well ... they can do all sorts of stuff. I should read up on this ...
:-)
AFAIK, https proxying is transparent: the client sends the proxy something like
CONNECT slashdot.org:443 HTTP/1.1
to get a forwarded TCP connection to the HTTPS server at the other end; the proxy never sees the HTTPS traffic in clear.
Yes the proxy can perform an MITM attack here but they'd have to dynamically fake SSL certificates for every site you connect to, and even then you'd see they were all signed by the corporate CA if you checked. Unless, of course, they rename their corporate CA "Verisign Trust Root" or similar, or have a few and mix it up a bit. That'd be a neat attack
Five? That's the same as the Windows NT one, unless you're picking that C:\Windows is different from C:\WinNT :-p OMG, on Small Business Server 4.5 it was under C:\WinNT.SBS\Profiles by default! So that's six is it? :-p
You shouldn't care where these things are anyway - you should use the API functions (SHGetSpecialFolderPath?) to find them. Remember the string "Documents and Settings" gets localised!