Name your hosts whatever you want and keep information about the detail somewhere else. There's just too much info to be adequately conveyed inside of a name.
This always allows for better name choices. For example, drug names.
"John, are you on cocaine?"
"Nope, I'm on LSD right now."
"Well, then who's on heroin?"
"Nobody, I'm pretty sure."
"Wait a minute, I'm using heroin right now, wait until I get off."
The role Systems Administrator and Network Administrators play is a difficult one. For example, corporate resources are to be used only for conducting business and certainly not for illegal activity. So many companies use monitoring and blocking techniques to try to keep the incidences down. Usually, the idea that your are being "spied" on is enough to deter the inappropriate use. But not always.
I remember seeing a manager one time hitting a whole mess load of porn sites from his office one time. Sure... I could have turned him in and it would have resulted in immediate termination, instead, I just would casually walk by his office, knock and have a short friendly conversation with him. I think eventually he figured out I didn't show up except when he was needing his porn fix. Message received... and nobody got hurt.
In another case, a person made a system change to our mail system which resulted in a complicated failure (that cost they company some serious money). I was tasked with figuring out exactly what happened. I did. The accident was caused by something that a close admin friend had done. I did not turn him in, but instead told him that he need to tell them that he was the root cause. Unfortunately, he chose to not handle the situation well, and he ended up losing his job (sigh).
So... it is hard. I think that employees need to understand the risks of violating their corporate policies, be it network or system admin wise. If you think you might get fired if someone finds out... use your head and STOP. Good rule to live by.
But yes, your Network Admin and Sys Admin have a LOT of access to your data and what you are doing.... and if they strictly play by the rules, it could be disastrous. So... the easiest thing is FOR YOU to play by the rules. Then you won't have to live in fear. Rules are different at different places. Your own personal web surfing from home is different than using your corporation's Internet. Be nice to your admins, you might get some unexpected mercy when you need it... but realize that doesn't HAVE to happen. If you follow your company's policies, you won't have to worry so much. Net/Sys Admin are NOT off the hook, obviously, they have to adhere to an even more stringent set of rules (well, at least a heavier temptation to violate rules) since they have access to things that a normal person might not have access to.
It is a misconception that you have to license an application under GPLv2 if you bind to a GPLv2 library. However is is VERY true that you fall under GPLv2 or higher if you DISTRIBUTE your code that binds to a GPLv2 library. In other words, binaries that use GPLv2 that are not publicly distributed do NOT have to follow GPL rules at all. You can ask RMS about that and he'll concur. In fact, he will tell you that localized customization of GPL software does not require redistribution or notification of changes to the "owner" (if I can use that term when talking about free software).
There is the "Lesser" LGPL license that does permit closed source (that is, short lived, unmaintainable and therefore, undesirable) software to be distributed without being free. Why undesirable?, because one day (believe it or not) that benevolent IP fascist company will go belly up.... and then ALL is effectively lost. Even SW under so-called escrow plans does NOT guarantee access since a company ultimately decides the fate of closed source software. Using closed source software ALWAYS puts you at risk since the software can actually disappear from the face of the planet. That may seem extreme, but I know I can give you several examples of VERY valuable pieces of software that have been lost due to IP closed source fascists who believed they would live forever.
So, how do you make money on GPL'd software? By supporting those that maintain software, you preserve software. When you send money to closed source companies, you don't guarantee ANYTHING. That company could kill their software product TOMORROW and there is nothing you can do about it. So, arguably, it's the wrong question to ask. The right question to ask is: Can YOU make money building your business on proprietary software that might not be there tomorrow?
I had on old 386sx (didn't belong to me originally). I decided to try to make something out of it. I maxed out the ram, which meant buying VERY expensive cache chips (total cost >$80). At the end of the day, I had a very nice, very slow machine. The Oak video on it could do 800x600 at 256 colors, but that was all. Granted, for that time period, it was typical, but not something I would have purchased.
Given that people will pretty much give you their old P4 boxes nowadays, I don't think I'll ever go through this exercise again (I still have the machine btw).
I prefer to read the html code and interpret them myself...
Do you read and interpret CSS? What score did you get on Acid3? Do employers look at that sort of thing on a resume? Are there any good books out there to help someone interested in taking the test?
Since evolution is not a fact, and the further we explore biology reveals more and more problems with the hypothesis of evolution, I don't think it's wrong to suggest that evolution could be wrong. In fact (if I can say the word), preventing people from considering possibilities will just lead us further away from science.
I would be wrong to right a textbook without mentioning the problems with evolution... and IMHO, it needs to give coverage of other possibilities.
I believe that before I die, we'll be laughing at our immaturity with regards the acceptance of evolution (which will have so many holes by then, that NOBODY will accept it), and we will have moved onto the "space seed" hypothesis which doesn't seek to answer the origin of life, but pushes it out of our reach (well.. it may make excursions farther into space more exciting anyhow).
Even Darwin in his book points out some factors which would make the ideas of evolution invalid and as far as I know, we've hit ALL of those factors in science today, thus making evolution invalid at least to Mr. Darwin. But hey... I think people just like believe in what they believe... no sense in doing science anymore.
It's funny... for whatever reason, KDE folks feel that they have to appease the Gnome fanboys. Gnome has constantly chastised KDE for looking too much like... that other OS.... Well... we won't compare Gnome to anything else, but why did KDE think they had to change the UI in such a radical way? Most Gnome fanboys are proud of KDE4. They herald it as the change that KDE always needed... of course, they're not switching away from Gnome.... I guess they realized that a usable desktop was more important than being different. KDE4.... for those who need something other than a usable desktop ui.
People wonder why move away from KDE to Gnome. We all KNOW that KDE4 is a radical step... and it simply needs maturing. So why not just look at KDE4 and stay at KDE 3.5 until things are truly ready??
Simple.
Imagine if Linus gave the world a new Linux kernel. It's a radical step. It mostly works except it has no dynamic device management, most drivers aren't ported yet and networking isn't quite there. Imagine if he said that all work on the prior kernel had stopped, and only the new kernel would have the security and features needed for the future.
I imaging a lot of people wouldn't trust Linux kernel development anymore... and thus we have the state of KDE. The KDE folks could not have trumpeted KDE 4's arrival more loudly. They were(are) PROUD of it and believe it is OBVIOUS that it is so much better than KDE 3.5. So why complain? You folks who believe that KDE 3 is better than KDE 4 are just plain WRONG. Why? Because the KDE developers SAY SO. Who are you do disagree?
(you gotta admit... it makes you want to switch to Gnome... doesn't it??)
What makes you think the JFS inside of Linux has a future? It's not the same as the one in AIX. It's an old crummy (bad, buggy) version from the OS/2 days. From what I can tell, JFS (in Linux) isn't going to make it. Too many flaws, and no interest by IBM or others in fixing it.
1. VPN connections are not to be used for transmission of data deemed insecure by our Global Security department. This includes protocols such as: telnet, pop, smtp, ssh, rsync, IM, http, https, pops, spop, ftp, tftp, netbios, smb, dns, ntp, vnc, rdp.
2. VPN connections should not utilize any ports from 0-1023. Communication on these ports if forbidden.
3. VPN connections should not use dynamic ports in the 49152-65535 range. These confuse our IDS system.
4. VPN connections are allowed on approved registered ports in the 1024-49151 range as long as they do no include any of the protocols listed in #1. The company reserves the rights to ports 1024-20056, 30022-40085, 19872-28029, 31082-62892, 25010-30023, and 50000-65534. The rest may be used by the user for all of your communication needs.
Note: We have made it easy to request a new port registration. First VPN into the corporate network then either send an email to newport@company.com with the requested port in the subject line and justification in the message part, or use our new secure web interface off the company portal. Just click on the Easy to to Business With section and then click on New Port.
Yes... man pages and info are a pain. I've started writing a talking paper clip application to address the issue (thinking about a dog app to replace find).
With 9/11 we watched as the Bush administration tightened government control over many different areas of civil life. Something that normally we don't like to see Republicans do (they tend to lean towards less government). But the people issued a mandate that 9/11 MUST NEVER happen again (which is impossible), so freedoms were restricted in a vain attempt to discourage the immoral behavior of terrorists. Such is the way it works when you try to change people using the law.
So... it's a weird election. Looking at McCain's plans (which tend to change over time), it appears that he's wanting to let us control more of our money... including areas of health care, etc. People are tired though... and in a way, they don't really want their money, they'd rather pay extra to have the government control their lives. Obama says he can deliver that in a way that will make everyone "happy".
In a way, Bush is more of a pro-socialism Democrat.... his administration has increased a lot of regulation. In fact, I'd argue it was so strong, that it was no wonder that the deregulation of some of the banking/loan rules was so well received by Republicans and Democrats alike (until it was abused... money/power can corrupt good morals).
Personally, I don't think either candidate knows what to do. I predict that under Obama we'll have more government regulation (which as I said, makes sense to the lazy... we may be very "happy" for awhile). Not certain what we'd have under McCain. I think both are fairly unpredictable. Neither is a good leader. Both are extremely arrogant and proud of themselves.
I vote we vote to postpone the vote and see if we can get some good candidates to vote for.
I have large RAID 5's and RAID 6's... I generally don't have any RAID columns over 8TB. I HAVE had drive failures. Yes... I'm talking cheapo SATA drives. No... I have not see the problem this article presents. Do I backup critical data? Yes. The only time I lost a column was due to a firmware bug which caused a rebuild to fail. Took awhile to restore from backup, but that was about the extent of the damage. I would call this article FUD... deceptive FUD, but very much FUD.
It's implied in the Slashot description that ZFS solves the problem of drive failure. It does not. Just want to make that clear. In fact, I'd argue that there is actually more risk inside of ZFS with regards to the actual problem presented here.... for those that believe all is doom and gloom with regards to RAID.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet IBM is mad they didn't spend more time on their BlackBerry integration piece to PROFS.
Final score
IBM: 0
Obama's BlackBerry: 1
While good news for sure.... science believes this was indirectly caused by universal climate change. Sigh...
If we don't do something about solar helium production we're all doomed!
Why remake the good Star Wars IV movie? I'm all for redoing the stupid ones: I, II and III.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Sun should end with Schwartz and McNealy making a bundle in cash from Oracle.... err... wait a minute... that's going to happen anyway!!
Nevermind...
IMHO, machine names make poor databases.
Name your hosts whatever you want and keep information about the detail somewhere else. There's just too much info to be adequately conveyed inside of a name.
This always allows for better name choices. For example, drug names.
"John, are you on cocaine?"
"Nope, I'm on LSD right now."
"Well, then who's on heroin?"
"Nobody, I'm pretty sure."
"Wait a minute, I'm using heroin right now, wait until I get off."
and so on...
The role Systems Administrator and Network Administrators play is a difficult one. For example, corporate resources are to be used only for conducting business and certainly not for illegal activity. So many companies use monitoring and blocking techniques to try to keep the incidences down. Usually, the idea that your are being "spied" on is enough to deter the inappropriate use. But not always.
I remember seeing a manager one time hitting a whole mess load of porn sites from his office one time. Sure... I could have turned him in and it would have resulted in immediate termination, instead, I just would casually walk by his office, knock and have a short friendly conversation with him. I think eventually he figured out I didn't show up except when he was needing his porn fix. Message received... and nobody got hurt.
In another case, a person made a system change to our mail system which resulted in a complicated failure (that cost they company some serious money). I was tasked with figuring out exactly what happened. I did. The accident was caused by something that a close admin friend had done. I did not turn him in, but instead told him that he need to tell them that he was the root cause. Unfortunately, he chose to not handle the situation well, and he ended up losing his job (sigh).
So... it is hard. I think that employees need to understand the risks of violating their corporate policies, be it network or system admin wise. If you think you might get fired if someone finds out... use your head and STOP. Good rule to live by.
But yes, your Network Admin and Sys Admin have a LOT of access to your data and what you are doing.... and if they strictly play by the rules, it could be disastrous. So... the easiest thing is FOR YOU to play by the rules. Then you won't have to live in fear. Rules are different at different places. Your own personal web surfing from home is different than using your corporation's Internet. Be nice to your admins, you might get some unexpected mercy when you need it... but realize that doesn't HAVE to happen. If you follow your company's policies, you won't have to worry so much. Net/Sys Admin are NOT off the hook, obviously, they have to adhere to an even more stringent set of rules (well, at least a heavier temptation to violate rules) since they have access to things that a normal person might not have access to.
It is a misconception that you have to license an application under GPLv2 if you bind to a GPLv2 library. However is is VERY true that you fall under GPLv2 or higher if you DISTRIBUTE your code that binds to a GPLv2 library. In other words, binaries that use GPLv2 that are not publicly distributed do NOT have to follow GPL rules at all. You can ask RMS about that and he'll concur. In fact, he will tell you that localized customization of GPL software does not require redistribution or notification of changes to the "owner" (if I can use that term when talking about free software).
There is the "Lesser" LGPL license that does permit closed source (that is, short lived, unmaintainable and therefore, undesirable) software to be distributed without being free. Why undesirable?, because one day (believe it or not) that benevolent IP fascist company will go belly up.... and then ALL is effectively lost. Even SW under so-called escrow plans does NOT guarantee access since a company ultimately decides the fate of closed source software. Using closed source software ALWAYS puts you at risk since the software can actually disappear from the face of the planet. That may seem extreme, but I know I can give you several examples of VERY valuable pieces of software that have been lost due to IP closed source fascists who believed they would live forever.
So, how do you make money on GPL'd software? By supporting those that maintain software, you preserve software. When you send money to closed source companies, you don't guarantee ANYTHING. That company could kill their software product TOMORROW and there is nothing you can do about it. So, arguably, it's the wrong question to ask. The right question to ask is: Can YOU make money building your business on proprietary software that might not be there tomorrow?
When asked about the pull of the books, they replied, "Pulling the titles seemed double-plus-good."
Might be a bit too pricey. Have your Visa ready.
Given that people will pretty much give you their old P4 boxes nowadays, I don't think I'll ever go through this exercise again (I still have the machine btw).
My data is VERY important to me. Therefore I want the cheapest, lamest solution possible. Please recommend the "best" way to protect my data...
I prefer to read the html code and interpret them myself...
Do you read and interpret CSS? What score did you get on Acid3? Do employers look at that sort of thing on a resume? Are there any good books out there to help someone interested in taking the test?
Sorry about all the questions...
Since evolution is not a fact, and the further we explore biology reveals more and more problems with the hypothesis of evolution, I don't think it's wrong to suggest that evolution could be wrong. In fact (if I can say the word), preventing people from considering possibilities will just lead us further away from science.
I would be wrong to right a textbook without mentioning the problems with evolution... and IMHO, it needs to give coverage of other possibilities.
I believe that before I die, we'll be laughing at our immaturity with regards the acceptance of evolution (which will have so many holes by then, that NOBODY will accept it), and we will have moved onto the "space seed" hypothesis which doesn't seek to answer the origin of life, but pushes it out of our reach (well.. it may make excursions farther into space more exciting anyhow).
Even Darwin in his book points out some factors which would make the ideas of evolution invalid and as far as I know, we've hit ALL of those factors in science today, thus making evolution invalid at least to Mr. Darwin. But hey... I think people just like believe in what they believe... no sense in doing science anymore.
Make IPv6 a rider on top of something everyone wants!
So let's make IPv6 a requirement to enable all of those Blu-ray features.
Err... wait a minute...
The good news is that while being the worst at producing the documents, they also have the cleanest record.
It's funny... for whatever reason, KDE folks feel that they have to appease the Gnome fanboys. Gnome has constantly chastised KDE for looking too much like... that other OS.... Well... we won't compare Gnome to anything else, but why did KDE think they had to change the UI in such a radical way? Most Gnome fanboys are proud of KDE4. They herald it as the change that KDE always needed... of course, they're not switching away from Gnome.... I guess they realized that a usable desktop was more important than being different. KDE4.... for those who need something other than a usable desktop ui.
People wonder why move away from KDE to Gnome. We all KNOW that KDE4 is a radical step... and it simply needs maturing. So why not just look at KDE4 and stay at KDE 3.5 until things are truly ready??
Simple.
Imagine if Linus gave the world a new Linux kernel. It's a radical step. It mostly works except it has no dynamic device management, most drivers aren't ported yet and networking isn't quite there. Imagine if he said that all work on the prior kernel had stopped, and only the new kernel would have the security and features needed for the future.
I imaging a lot of people wouldn't trust Linux kernel development anymore... and thus we have the state of KDE. The KDE folks could not have trumpeted KDE 4's arrival more loudly. They were(are) PROUD of it and believe it is OBVIOUS that it is so much better than KDE 3.5. So why complain? You folks who believe that KDE 3 is better than KDE 4 are just plain WRONG. Why? Because the KDE developers SAY SO. Who are you do disagree?
(you gotta admit... it makes you want to switch to Gnome... doesn't it??)
What makes you think the JFS inside of Linux has a future? It's not the same as the one in AIX. It's an old crummy (bad, buggy) version from the OS/2 days. From what I can tell, JFS (in Linux) isn't going to make it. Too many flaws, and no interest by IBM or others in fixing it.
1. VPN connections are not to be used for transmission of data deemed insecure by our Global Security department. This includes protocols such as: telnet, pop, smtp, ssh, rsync, IM, http, https, pops, spop, ftp, tftp, netbios, smb, dns, ntp, vnc, rdp.
2. VPN connections should not utilize any ports from 0-1023. Communication on these ports if forbidden.
3. VPN connections should not use dynamic ports in the 49152-65535 range. These confuse our IDS system.
4. VPN connections are allowed on approved registered ports in the 1024-49151 range as long as they do no include any of the protocols listed in #1. The company reserves the rights to ports 1024-20056, 30022-40085, 19872-28029, 31082-62892, 25010-30023, and 50000-65534. The rest may be used by the user for all of your communication needs.
Note: We have made it easy to request a new port registration. First VPN into the corporate network then either send an email to newport@company.com with the requested port in the subject line and justification in the message part, or use our new secure web interface off the company portal. Just click on the Easy to to Business With section and then click on New Port.
1. If you connect to the VPN and place your own machine's IP onto our network... we will kill you.
Signing below indicates that you have read the policy in question and agree to adhere to it.
Yes... man pages and info are a pain. I've started writing a talking paper clip application to address the issue (thinking about a dog app to replace find).
With 9/11 we watched as the Bush administration tightened government control over many different areas of civil life. Something that normally we don't like to see Republicans do (they tend to lean towards less government). But the people issued a mandate that 9/11 MUST NEVER happen again (which is impossible), so freedoms were restricted in a vain attempt to discourage the immoral behavior of terrorists. Such is the way it works when you try to change people using the law.
So... it's a weird election. Looking at McCain's plans (which tend to change over time), it appears that he's wanting to let us control more of our money... including areas of health care, etc. People are tired though... and in a way, they don't really want their money, they'd rather pay extra to have the government control their lives. Obama says he can deliver that in a way that will make everyone "happy".
In a way, Bush is more of a pro-socialism Democrat.... his administration has increased a lot of regulation. In fact, I'd argue it was so strong, that it was no wonder that the deregulation of some of the banking/loan rules was so well received by Republicans and Democrats alike (until it was abused... money/power can corrupt good morals).
Personally, I don't think either candidate knows what to do. I predict that under Obama we'll have more government regulation (which as I said, makes sense to the lazy... we may be very "happy" for awhile). Not certain what we'd have under McCain. I think both are fairly unpredictable. Neither is a good leader. Both are extremely arrogant and proud of themselves.
I vote we vote to postpone the vote and see if we can get some good candidates to vote for.
I have large RAID 5's and RAID 6's... I generally don't have any RAID columns over 8TB. I HAVE had drive failures. Yes... I'm talking cheapo SATA drives. No... I have not see the problem this article presents. Do I backup critical data? Yes. The only time I lost a column was due to a firmware bug which caused a rebuild to fail. Took awhile to restore from backup, but that was about the extent of the damage. I would call this article FUD... deceptive FUD, but very much FUD.
It's implied in the Slashot description that ZFS solves the problem of drive failure. It does not. Just want to make that clear. In fact, I'd argue that there is actually more risk inside of ZFS with regards to the actual problem presented here.... for those that believe all is doom and gloom with regards to RAID.