I'm not sure if this was intended to be funny, or if it was misconstrued by the mods (wow, that'd be a first!), but I'll respond as if it were in a serious tone.
Say what you will about Quake 3 and its tendency to provoke violence in children, but at least people who obsess over it are communicating with other people, albeit over the Internet.
Most people I see playing online shoot-em-ups are too busy fragging their opponents to bother taking their hands from the cursor keys (or whatever they use for direction and fire) to use the keyboard; that would reduce their kill rate.
Games like this (and Tetris, and Solitaire, and so many others) are simply antisocial and psychologically crippling. You play for hours, not because you're "enjoying" it, but because your brain is too numbed to stop.
Are the games at fault, or the people? My grandmother used to (and probably still does) play Solitaire. Alone. She had a board she'd put on her lap and a deck of cards that's probably been dealt more times than I've worn socks. She'd play until she was bored, then quit.
I used to read quite seriously, and would often plow through 200-300 pages in a single night. (I read the American BiCentennial Series in a single school year = 10 months; grade 6). Would that be considered 'obsessive' behaviour, or is that healthy? I couldn't do it now, because performing in public school is much less demanding than performing at work (and heaven knows what would've happened if I pulled a few all-nighters like that and tried to drive before the sun came up!).
Anything to excess is a bad thing. Be it Quake, Snood, Solitaire, reading, chocolate, sex, anything. Rather than regulating everything that COULD cause us harm - why don't we teach our children and students moderation and self discipline?
if you find the iPod as cool as you seem to by your statement, then buy a Mac!! (Apple does have a windows version but it does not work on the mac.)
Ok, I had to respond to this and say "Whaaaaa?!?!?"
So I buy an iPod. I get Windows software for it. Now I buy a Mac, and for whatever reason decide to use the Windows version of the software on a platform that supports it natively...
I guess what they say about Mac users is, erm, true.;)
"The notion of blaming the store for not implementing air-tight security is patently ridiculous. Let's not forget that breaknig and entering is still a crime even if they only 'break' through a $5 door-handle lock. They're the criminals, they're in the wrong."
There, you too find it extremely difficult to avoid the analogy thing. To define what is the appropriate punishment for a crime one must find, approximately, how it correlates to other crimes.
Not an analogy, a reality check. So many people I've read comments from seem under the impression that it's only a crime if you break through an elaborate security system. Fact: Even if I only guess a password to gain access to a system, it is still unauthorized access (see 'criminal trespass'). The doorknob was merely to illustrate the silliness of the "What if I built... for my store?" analogies - they're just false.
Suppose the $5 lock was left inadvertently open? "Oh, your honor, I didn't realize the store was closed. I wanted to make a purchase, I pushed the door and it opened. I got what I needed from the shelves and was looking for a cashier to pay it, when they arrested me." Try to get a burglary conviction on that.
Apart from the rather unlikely set of circumstances (a person merely being in an empty store where the owner/employee has neglected to lock up) it still doesn't hold water. Always remember the golden rule; "Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law." If a person has walked into a business establishment after huors, when the "Closed" sign is displayed, when the lights are off, when there are no employees present - they are trespassing. Public establishments are not 24x7, and there is no expectation of such.
Now, going back to the internet: "Oh, your honor, I didn't realize I wasn't supposed to open those files. I wanted to make an on-line purchase. Some directories in the site were open, I was looking for the things I needed and how to pay for them when they arrested me."
You'd be imprisoned before you were finished talking. (Or, were you being sarcastic?!?)
In conclusion, I think it's the system administrators responsibility to know every single vulnerability his system has been demonstrated to have, and take adequate measures to close every gap. Yes, I think the crackers are guilty as well, but lazy sysadmins should be punished as accessories, and shoulder most of the blame, if they didn't do their job well.
Yes, sysadmins should be held responsible if they're not doing their job well; but what about 0Day exploits? What about exploits that the sysadmin was finally getting around to patching (there are any number of things that can and will take precedence - beaurocracy in workplaces is a fantastic beast), but gets to it too late? Or an exploit they simply didn't know about? If a sysadmin is overall responsible for hundreds of systems running on a multiple platforms in a dozen locations, it's entirely possible that he won't see a particular exploit before he gets hit with it.
Where do you draw the line between incompetence and over-worked (and human frailty)? In our slumping economy, we all know the tech sector is being hit particularly hard, which means quite often there simply aren't enough techs on hand to effectively administer all servers.
Again, it's not as simple as penalizing a person for not locking the door. Computers connected to the internet have approximately 131070 separate paths of entry. A typical server will be running one or more daemons which, often times, can't simply be updated on a whim because it's receiving 5 million queries per day, and downtime is not a possibility, letalone the possibility of something going wrong with the upgrade. Ever (major) daemon has had atleast one security vulnerability - I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say within the past year alone. If it hasn't been discovered yet, give it time. There are more crackers with more time on their hands and less management to answer to than all the security personell in the world.
On the other hand, maybe we need more break-ins to encourage management to crack their wallets and realize that hiring another admin or two at $xx thousand dollars per annum actually costs less than yy hours of downtime per incident due to penetration.
Hey, cleaning up a mall is expensive, cleaning up a web site should not take more than the time to restore a daily backup...
An international corporate website with a secure ordering component is slightly more complicated than "Insert tape, click Restore". There are distributed database servers that need to be examined, several web servers with load balancers in multiple geographically diverse locations, they need to investigate all involved servers and networking components to determine the possibility of a back door; and on top of all this, they have to leave the 'crime scene' untarnished so that security experts can determine a) how they got in, and b) how to prevent them from doing it again.
We're not just talking about somebody editing index.html here. Restoring from tape/CD-R may work for your home vanity domain website, but it falls slightly short in the real world.
I'd also like to echo the sentiments made by other posters;
A corporate website does garner sales, which equates to revenue. When someone is wholly responsible for removing public access to this medium, revenue is lost, the company's reputation sullied. This is more than 'grafitti' - so much more, that the term should cease to be used. It is not valid in this context.
The notion of blaming the store for not implementing air-tight security is patently ridiculous. Let's not forget that breaknig and entering is still a crime even if they only 'break' through a $5 door-handle lock. They're the criminals, they're in the wrong.
As usual, the vast majority of analogies posted are flagrantly off-key, so I'll pose one; Breaking into a web server and defacing the content is like breaking into a webserver and defacing the content. Come on, people, we're a technical group and should be able to talk about these incidents without resorting to brick wall, spray paint, bomb-threats, or other wild analogies.
These crimes should be treated in context, and the lawmakers should be told, repeatedly, that the Internet is not a direct analogy to real life. Servers are not brick and mortar establishments. Components of a website do not have to physically reside in the same country, letalone the same building.
When a person violates a website, they shuold be charged as such. The more intricate and harmful their intrusion, the more harsh the punishment. They should be given rehabilitative sentences including community service if they're young, or prison time if they're age of majority.
You seem to be of the 'more expensive = more reliable' school of thought.
Actually, following the thread it appeared as if he was talking about paying extra for triple the warranty, rather than opting for "cheaper is better" and sticking with a 1 year warranty.
Frankly, if I'm managing 1000 workstations, I want to know that 2 years and 8 months from now I can ship them 200 defective drives and have replacements shipped back to me post haste. The data protection is my responsibility; not having to needlessly purchase replacement drives due to manufacturer defects (or overstated MTBFs) is just being responsible.
So show me some statistics to support your contention that today's drives are less reliable. No, I don't want to know some third-hand story about your wife's friend's brother who said his hard drive failed. I want real, statistically significant numbers.
If I ship you last year's RMA sheets, will you pay the C.O.D. charges?
Otherwise, can I interest you in a stack of IBM DeskStar's or a couple of cases of Fujitsu 20-30 GB drives?
As an aside; if HDDs are truly more reliable; why are most major manufacturer warranties now only 1 year?
The point, again, that I'm trying to bring out is the difference between establishment (it's a "long standing" company) vs knowledge (DMA is "Directy Memory Access". It allows things, such as your new sound card, to transfer memory between your applications, and the sound card, without needing to use your processor. This makes it much more efficient, and makes it so it doesn't slow down your computer while playing music or sounds).
My questions weren't designed for a computer savvy person to ask a technician, they were designed to comfort computer illiterates who were taking their computer to a shop for repairs.
Computer newbies won't know what DMA IS, letalone know they should/might ask it of the technicians. Of course, the technician could also fake their way through technical Q&A to a newbie. For example; "DMA is an industry acronym meaning Dormant Material Application - this is just a term describing the type of sillicon used in the processors, where some of it exists to pad the space between transistors." I could explain that, for example, to my mother and she'd likely shake her head, raise a hand and say "Whoa whoa.. You lost me - nevermind!" (she doesn't understand technical terminology, nor does she care to; she's an accountant. She understands MS Office, StarOffice, ACCPAC, QuickBooks, Quicken,... ). If they were told differently by another tech/store, how are they to know who's telling the truth?
Are computer illiterates expected to prepare a technical quiz to bring to their repair shops before they'll entrust the computer to them? Even if they do - what about book smart types who are all but useless in a practical environment? I personally know atleast three people who can rhyme off each of the IRQs used in a standard PC and what their base functionality is, along with physical (base) memory addresses and ranges and their utility. However, I wouldn't trust him much further than a basic Windows installation in practise, and in the operations centre of even a small LAN is the last place I want to see them.
As to the answers you gave to the questions - excellent. I'd certainly trust you (then and now) with my computer. However, back then I likely wouldn't have entrusted you with a corporate LAN, even a moderately sized company LAN. Many computer techs I've dealt with (not for myself) aren't able to answer those questions with any degree of reason.
The questions were off the top of my head; they're by no means any sort of official screening process - just a few ideas to get the person into the mindset that "My computer is important, I should do atleast a little investigation before I leave it with someone". The most important thing is how you feel about the people who are going to be working on your system. Can you talk to the techs, or do they hide in the back and leave you with the sales people? Does the store give you the feeling that they know what they're doing, or is it an airbrushed location with slick salespeople and no foundation?
Word of mouth and the experience of people you know is an invaluable tool when selecting a technician (which is why I suggested talking to other people and neighboring businesses). I take my car to my current mechanic because my good friend has been using him for nearly 15 years, and his family used him even before that. He's good at what he does, he's honest (quit scoffing; he is!), and he's always treated me fairly. He gives me discounts and nominal things at no charge because I'm a loyal customer. (Things like free bulbs for brake lights, turn signals, free top-ups of some of my fluids, he waives some labour charges, etc.).
Of course I know more about computers now than when I was 14, but I was very proficient. If I had something I didn't know how to do, I gave it to somebody else who was more proficient. I didn't charge a lot of money, but i wasn't expecting much.
Again, we have a case of 'exception vs. rule'. Can you attest to all 14 year olds being both proficient enough not to cause equipment damage or data loss, and having the humility to say "I don't know what I'm doing" and hand problems off to someone more qualified/experienced? In my experience, and having worked in a high school with a little over 700 students I feel I'm qualified to say this - no, they do not.
I was also an experienced, knowledgeable 14 year old who already had 5 years' worth of experience, but I couldn't (and for very good reason) directly get work to do; I had to do it behind an exising company, who took responsibility for both my continued training and my actions should I screw up (which 14 year olds with 5 years of experience tinkering tend to do more often than 40 year olds with 20 years worth of professional experience - regardless of how good you were)
And if people had common sense, the government wouldn't have to mandate certification levels.
We've already seen (and discussed) countless examples of how and why government certification mandates don't work anyways, but yes, if common sense were actually more 'common', thuere are innumerable problems with this world that would dissapear.
Talk to neighboring businesses??? Forget the drugs, you are insane. I'm not looking for someone to act as surrogate mother for my future baby -- I want a freakin' computer repaired.
We were talking about people who don't want to get their data corrupted. If all you want is to get "a freakin' computer repaired" and you don't care about your data (in which case, why are you responding to this article?) you can go to any Joe Tech and pay $20/hour for whatever labour he may give you.
I am with you 100%, however, people tend to like to overly generalize. I have worked in the industry for 10 years now and just started my own company. It is almost like the dingy room DSL line scene painted above:P. We all have to start some where.
Sorry, I hope you don't feel I was over-generalizing; I was trying to clarify a point, namely that if people are overly concerned with the store they're visiting, they could use some of my suggestions to become more comfortable with the business they're preparing to deal with. You'll note that I also mentioned using small computer stores and taking them with a grain of salt. My employer started in a home office, then moved to a small office above a grocery store, and eventually found his way to a store front. The problem, however, is the fact that small computer shops running in a low-overhead environment are a dime a dozen, and there's no guarantee that someone who's been running in a "Box With DSL" for three months is qualified, educated, or experienced, or that they'll still be there in a week when you try to find them for a follow-up job (or to fix the job they didn't fix in the first place). As a matter of fact, we replaced a "box with DSL" store with a... less than qualified individual, and through months of hard work, determination, and convincing took over all of his former customers in the building and repaired his less than adequate work. (I'll spare the gory details; but believe me, there are a lot of them).
As someone else already alluded to; if the store has a decent location and/or television commercials they "must be doing something right". Moreover, they have more interest (more to loose) by shutting down the location, and are generally more trackable/accountable to the customer base.
This is incorrect. The good samaritan law excuses average passers-by from liability if they intervene to try to save someone's life (i.e., if they give CPR). I don't think it excuses passing doctors, however.
The Good Samaritan Law, if I recall my readings correctly, also holds people liable for damages if they see an assault in progress and do nothing to assist.
but I myself have never had any complaints, and I have had many repeat customers. Perhaps my methods are less noble than yours, but they certainly serve my customers and myself well enough
There is a fundamental problem with this notion. When people bring their computer to you, you are put into a position of trust. You are their authority over what needs to be done with their machine. These people don't understand that 99% of computer problems can be fixed (with varying degrees of difficulty), so they take you at your word.
When you tell these people that they will just have to grin and bear through re-installing all of their applications and re-configuring the settings it took them months to learn they could change in the first place - many of them will believe you. Why? Because they have no choice. It's your duty to give them the choice; to service their computer properly and professionally, or at the very least to inform them that they have a choice.
I hate to bandy a cliche about, but you, sir, are the reason so many people are calling for standards in our industry. When best effort isn't even made, it gives other technicians a bad name.
You may have had many repeat customers thanks to your "RRR" methodology, but I've gained dozens upon dozens of customers - individual and business alike - due to people like you. Usually it takes time to gain their confidence because of it, I might add.
Not that it matters. Computers no longer cost thousands of dollars to replace. Pretty soon only idiots are going to want their computers repaired. Smart folks will simply have good backups. When something goes wrong they will march down to WalMart and buy a new machine.
That became a non-issue years ago. I'd be surprised if even 1% of computer shops 'repair' computer components; that's what RMA is for. When we find a faulty component, we replace it. If it's covered under warranty, we send it away. If not, we bill them. But why would a person with $900 worth of quality (read; not WalMart) components spend money on a completely new system when they could get away with a $100 component card and an hour's labour?
Moreover, many problems that are encountered are software driven. What part do you replace to make KaZaA, Outlook, Netscape, or your favourite game load again, or to remove the virus infiltration?
Software issues aren't so easily solved. Formatting is all well and good, but it can't make short work of re-installing and re-configuring dozens of software packages, and re-configuring environment settings for multiple users, or... Moreover, we still have to find and back up all required data, so there are still applicable labour charges.
I'm sure people said the same thing as you about automobile repairs at some time or another, but we still pay to have them fixed. Sometimes it just costs more to replace the unit when you consider the hidden, after the fact costs involved.
Except that if your computer worked well enough to perform a backup, then why are you taking it into the shop in the first place?
If your data is that important, you've been backing up regularly, so the point is moot.
While your computer is in the shop, you can rest assured because you've got a library of tapes, CD-R[W]s, etc. with your data - integrity checked - stored safely in a lock box.
I'd recommend keeping an extra disk on hand from old machine but that is still compatible with your current hardware. If your machine breaks down swap in the old disk and make them fix it with that disk in place - instead of the disk that has your live data.
People who aren't savvy enough to repair their own systems probably shouldn't uninstall their hard disk drive (which, as has already been pointed out, is the most likely source of the problem in the first place), letalone install a different drive before taking the machine for repair.
Probably the most common problem I've encountered with people who repair their own computers is the ignorance of the ZIF (Zero Insertion Force) concept, which will result in bent, broken, or crossed pins (which can/will cause electrical shorts, possibly permanently damaging components).
I never reccomend that any of our computer illiterate customers open their own PCs (warranty issues notwithstanding). This isn't to supplement our bottom line; in fact, quite the opposite. If our customers were to service their own machines, we'd likely sell more parts (replacing damaged parts) and charge labour for their installation on top of the initial issue.
Another significant reason to do this (and IMHO another ripe area for regulation) is that you aren't giving the guy in the repair shop access to your data which potentially could have trade secrets, software still in development, your pr0n collection, your stock portfolio, who knows what else that the tech could then use to blackmail you with making public or otherwise profit from.
There are already laws concerning this; blackmail is illegal already and can find the tecnician in federal prison, not just having their license revoked. If you've got sensitive data on your system and are worried about it, draft a contract and have them sign it.
I'd be willing to be that some of these kids work for less than is legal to get on at the shops, I've known people to "volunteer" at a computer shop for a week when I was in high school, to get hired there. This is why anyone who runs a computer shop doesn't want regs.
Two points;
There are legitimate co-operative education programs in effect all over North America. If one doesn't exist, inquire about it at your guidance office.
Please don't paint with such a wide brush. We've never used under-aged or unqualified labour, nor have we ever paid less than fair market value for labour (contracted or hourly).
What is the technician supposed to do when working on your machine? take your machine, extract the HDD, take an image of it, make a backup of that image just in case the first one fails, then boot your machine and realize the problem is a 5-second fix because the boot sector was toasted by faulty antivirus software?
Then they can send you a bill for $5k for the hour's work, citing the cost of mal-practice insurance and the costs of being certified by a professional body.
Don't forget the contract lawyer who writes and verifies the contracts that assure the customer that you will not maintain a copy of their data for a prolonged period of time, that you do not insure the integrity of the data from the moment they leave your location, that you will not view or use their data,...
Of course, along with mal-practise insurance you also have to figure in about $5k/year in re-training, plus certification costs for each and every employee. "What, that's LAST YEAR'S A+?!?"
Your files are important? Then only have competent people work on your computer.
Exactly!
I too fix dozens of computers every month for people who had their friend who "really knows computers" work on it, and the work ranges from slightly to extraordinarily incompetent in most cases. Businesses get roped into bad deals with incompetent computer techs, too, and it's entirely preventable.
Some steps to ensure the integrity of your data;
Ensure that this is a reputable business location. Visit the location in person. Is it a garage/basement/spare bedroom/dingy concrete box with a desk and a DSL line? If so, you probably don't want to do business with them. If you want to help out the little guy, take it with a grain of salt.
If they are in a professional location - does it LOOK professional? Do they have a clean location, or a dingy store with piles of old junker computers and dusty peripherals as big as small appliances?
Check their vendor's permit. Find out how long they've been in business. (At the very least, ensure that they have a gov't approved vendor's permit available on display)
Ask questions. I can't emphasize this enough - ask questions.
How long have you been doing this?
Have you worked at and/or operated any other businesses recently?
What do you know about {insert system configuration here}?
What are your labour rates? (Hint: established, knowledgeable businesses will tend to have firm, hourly labour rates. Joe Computer Guy will work for a coffee, a cheeseburger, 'like 20 bucks', etc.)
How long have you been in this location?
What steps would you take to ensure the integrity of my data?
What type of warranty do you offer?
Do you guarantee your labour? How?
If the company wants your business, they'll take the time to answer your questions and make you feel confident. Some will even invite you, if you don't feel comfortable, to take your business elsewhere. If they seem like they really, REALLY want your business, be wary.
Talk to neighboring businesses, friends, aquaintances - anybody in the area who may have dealt with this establishment and ensure they're on the up and up. Word of mouth can come in really handy.
There are any number of things you can do to ensure that you can trust the people you're leaving your computer with; a lot of which can be asessed in about 30 seconds when you walk in the door. Caveat Emptor has to apply, and if people are going to blindly trust someone on their word (hint; smooth talkers aren't neccesarily the best people for the job!), then IMNSHO they deserve whatever perils they may encounter.
I have real trouble symapthizing with someone who entrusted their computer to a 14 year old whiz-kid and wound up losing all their data and had components blow up on them shortly afterwards. Even businesses who aren't computer savvy should be able to recognize a snake-oil salesman when they see one coming. They should also have a firm contract, reveiwed by their lawyer if they're large enough to warrant, that spells out exactly what the technician will and will not do, and gives timeframes for completion of work. All too often I've seen incompetent contractors charging hourly rates for weeks on end for a three day job, just because they can't figure it out. Are you paying for someone's learning curve? Have someone stay in the room with them and see what they're donig. If they're reading manuals more than they're working, or if you hear an excess of profanity with little positive result, chances are you're funding their mis-education.
I really don't want to see government, who (from personal experience) have clue #0 about information technology, mandating certification levels for computer stores. While it would be nice to see much of our local competition shut down, it would also add a lot of additional headache to an otherwise low margin, slumping industry.
Microsoft is not responsible for what 3rd party vendors produce. In order to be responsible in any way, they would have to implement a policy where by Microsoft inspects all source code for anything made for Windows, and only then "allow" it to be shipped.
Interesting; my threading layout had this post displayed right above yours. Between this and the "Don't trust us as a source of secure activex controls" fiasco - how are we expected to trust code they're certifying?
Me thinks it's time Microsoft got out of the signing business altogether. It's even giving them a bad rap.
2K does have the same code-base as 98, I should I know used to do tech support for it.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Aside from the fact that doing tech support for a product does not give you intricate knowledge of the internal function of the system; the Windows 2000 operating system is the Windows NT kernel (originating from Microsoft and IBM's partnered development of OS/2) with the Windows 95/98 interface, with some enhancements, new filesystem support (NTFS is reminiscant of HPFS), and multi-user support enhancements over NT's kludged multi-user capabilities. (The NT kernel, their user interface(s), and their filesystems were not designed initially for multi-user support).
I'd quote history pages for you, but the resources on the Internet are so plentiful I'd just be seen as karma whoring.
XP took the kernel and rebuilt it by hand, taking out the extra thousand lines of commented out coding as well as unneeded subs.
Apart from the blatant contradiction of this statement (if they re-wrote it from scratch, what did they "remove"?) - how are we to believe you've come aquainted with this information?
As for workstations not being identical -- if they aren't, and you've got thousands of them, your IS department is going to be humongous. Most places will standardize the systems rather than try and support all the possible combinations of software. At worst, you shouldn't see more than three or four different installs, at least that IS is responsible for.
That sounds like theoretical versus actual management. Have you ever worked in a large IS department? (Greater than 250 workstations in each of more than one location)
But Canada grabbing a gene patent? Canada is among the richest countries in the world and this patent does nothing to help poverty-stricken, plague-addled victims. This looks like yet another socialist power grab by our neighbors to the north.
They patented a gene sequence. A sequence that probably exists, and has existed in millions of women for thousands of years. It's like patenting a phallic shaped appendage that dangles from approximately 1 of every 2 individuals, or blue tinted irises in the eyes of North American males. It's a ridiculous, prohibitive patent and I applaud my government for telling this corporation to stick it.
If, and only if, the patent covers the specific methods by which to identify the presence of these sequences I will agree that there should be some renumeration to the corporation, but it's unreasonable to expect to have patients shipped down to Utah (on whose nickel, I might add?) to perform the tests at triple the cost they could be performed here at home. Why can't the company atleast permit the tests to be performed locally with royalties transferred to the company?
Myriad is being completely unreasonable, and I really hope the Ontario government wins and sets a precedent against gene sequence patents. Nobody has the right to patent something that's existed in my body since my conception; period.
Now your job is greatly simplified. Use a utility that overwrites the boot partition on a machine with the image stored on a CD. (Let users store their data files in a second partition.) Update the OS to the current level, and make an image CD using it. Then get a flunky to go to each machine and re-image it. (Do this after hours when the place is empty.)
Imaging a wide area network isn't as simple as all that. Having a 'flunky' image, say, 2000 machines within a (potentially) 500KM radius would be a week-long endeavour; during business hours as well as overtime. Distributed imaging solutions would chew up precious WAN bandwidth, not to mention time, not to mention the high potential for failure over a less-reliable-than-LAN link, so you'd require a person on-site at each location. This person would update their local copy of the workstation image (which, BTW, would probably fit on three or four CDs; not one) on an imaging server and push the image to the local clients.
This chews up a lot of LAN bandwidth and time, even after hours, and requires a lot of manpower (someone physically at each location). This would push the changes across the entire WAN in a very long time period. In other words, by the time you were done 'updating' your WAN, you'd have to start the process all over again with the next batch of updates.
This, of course, is assuming that each and every workstation configuration is identical. Hardware and/or software differences mean different workstation images. So now you have to have a copy of each hardware configuration in your lab to create/update each new image before you make it available. You then have to account for all software differences (ie; graphics artists will have one suite of applications while CAD designers another, marketting/sales people another, accounting people another, etc.) meaning the potential for several images per hardware setup, meaning an entire day of image, update, test, re-create image on server, image a second workstation, test, verify, push image to remote location(s), repeat for next image / hardware setup.
Imaging workstations is only ideally suited for environments with similar hardware and software needs, converged into large, localized groupings on high bandwidth connections. Satellite offices on a corporate WAN aren't a likely candidate for such an update procedure.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure if this was intended to be funny, or if it was misconstrued by the mods (wow, that'd be a first!), but I'll respond as if it were in a serious tone.
Most people I see playing online shoot-em-ups are too busy fragging their opponents to bother taking their hands from the cursor keys (or whatever they use for direction and fire) to use the keyboard; that would reduce their kill rate.
Are the games at fault, or the people? My grandmother used to (and probably still does) play Solitaire. Alone. She had a board she'd put on her lap and a deck of cards that's probably been dealt more times than I've worn socks. She'd play until she was bored, then quit.
I used to read quite seriously, and would often plow through 200-300 pages in a single night. (I read the American BiCentennial Series in a single school year = 10 months; grade 6). Would that be considered 'obsessive' behaviour, or is that healthy? I couldn't do it now, because performing in public school is much less demanding than performing at work (and heaven knows what would've happened if I pulled a few all-nighters like that and tried to drive before the sun came up!).
Anything to excess is a bad thing. Be it Quake, Snood, Solitaire, reading, chocolate, sex, anything. Rather than regulating everything that COULD cause us harm - why don't we teach our children and students moderation and self discipline?
Ok, I had to respond to this and say "Whaaaaa?!?!?"
So I buy an iPod. I get Windows software for it. Now I buy a Mac, and for whatever reason decide to use the Windows version of the software on a platform that supports it natively...
I guess what they say about Mac users is, erm, true. ;)
Not an analogy, a reality check. So many people I've read comments from seem under the impression that it's only a crime if you break through an elaborate security system. Fact: Even if I only guess a password to gain access to a system, it is still unauthorized access (see 'criminal trespass'). The doorknob was merely to illustrate the silliness of the "What if I built ... for my store?" analogies - they're just false.
Apart from the rather unlikely set of circumstances (a person merely being in an empty store where the owner/employee has neglected to lock up) it still doesn't hold water. Always remember the golden rule; "Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law." If a person has walked into a business establishment after huors, when the "Closed" sign is displayed, when the lights are off, when there are no employees present - they are trespassing. Public establishments are not 24x7, and there is no expectation of such.
You'd be imprisoned before you were finished talking. (Or, were you being sarcastic?!?)
Yes, sysadmins should be held responsible if they're not doing their job well; but what about 0Day exploits? What about exploits that the sysadmin was finally getting around to patching (there are any number of things that can and will take precedence - beaurocracy in workplaces is a fantastic beast), but gets to it too late? Or an exploit they simply didn't know about? If a sysadmin is overall responsible for hundreds of systems running on a multiple platforms in a dozen locations, it's entirely possible that he won't see a particular exploit before he gets hit with it.
Where do you draw the line between incompetence and over-worked (and human frailty)? In our slumping economy, we all know the tech sector is being hit particularly hard, which means quite often there simply aren't enough techs on hand to effectively administer all servers.
Again, it's not as simple as penalizing a person for not locking the door. Computers connected to the internet have approximately 131070 separate paths of entry. A typical server will be running one or more daemons which, often times, can't simply be updated on a whim because it's receiving 5 million queries per day, and downtime is not a possibility, letalone the possibility of something going wrong with the upgrade. Ever (major) daemon has had atleast one security vulnerability - I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say within the past year alone. If it hasn't been discovered yet, give it time. There are more crackers with more time on their hands and less management to answer to than all the security personell in the world.
On the other hand, maybe we need more break-ins to encourage management to crack their wallets and realize that hiring another admin or two at $xx thousand dollars per annum actually costs less than yy hours of downtime per incident due to penetration.
An international corporate website with a secure ordering component is slightly more complicated than "Insert tape, click Restore". There are distributed database servers that need to be examined, several web servers with load balancers in multiple geographically diverse locations, they need to investigate all involved servers and networking components to determine the possibility of a back door; and on top of all this, they have to leave the 'crime scene' untarnished so that security experts can determine a) how they got in, and b) how to prevent them from doing it again.
We're not just talking about somebody editing index.html here. Restoring from tape/CD-R may work for your home vanity domain website, but it falls slightly short in the real world.
I'd also like to echo the sentiments made by other posters;
As usual, the vast majority of analogies posted are flagrantly off-key, so I'll pose one; Breaking into a web server and defacing the content is like breaking into a webserver and defacing the content. Come on, people, we're a technical group and should be able to talk about these incidents without resorting to brick wall, spray paint, bomb-threats, or other wild analogies.
These crimes should be treated in context, and the lawmakers should be told, repeatedly, that the Internet is not a direct analogy to real life. Servers are not brick and mortar establishments. Components of a website do not have to physically reside in the same country, letalone the same building.
When a person violates a website, they shuold be charged as such. The more intricate and harmful their intrusion, the more harsh the punishment. They should be given rehabilitative sentences including community service if they're young, or prison time if they're age of majority.
Actually, following the thread it appeared as if he was talking about paying extra for triple the warranty, rather than opting for "cheaper is better" and sticking with a 1 year warranty.
Frankly, if I'm managing 1000 workstations, I want to know that 2 years and 8 months from now I can ship them 200 defective drives and have replacements shipped back to me post haste. The data protection is my responsibility; not having to needlessly purchase replacement drives due to manufacturer defects (or overstated MTBFs) is just being responsible.
If I ship you last year's RMA sheets, will you pay the C.O.D. charges?
Otherwise, can I interest you in a stack of IBM DeskStar's or a couple of cases of Fujitsu 20-30 GB drives?
As an aside; if HDDs are truly more reliable; why are most major manufacturer warranties now only 1 year?
My questions weren't designed for a computer savvy person to ask a technician, they were designed to comfort computer illiterates who were taking their computer to a shop for repairs.
Computer newbies won't know what DMA IS, letalone know they should/might ask it of the technicians. Of course, the technician could also fake their way through technical Q&A to a newbie. For example; "DMA is an industry acronym meaning Dormant Material Application - this is just a term describing the type of sillicon used in the processors, where some of it exists to pad the space between transistors." I could explain that, for example, to my mother and she'd likely shake her head, raise a hand and say "Whoa whoa.. You lost me - nevermind!" (she doesn't understand technical terminology, nor does she care to; she's an accountant. She understands MS Office, StarOffice, ACCPAC, QuickBooks, Quicken, ... ). If they were told differently by another tech/store, how are they to know who's telling the truth?
Are computer illiterates expected to prepare a technical quiz to bring to their repair shops before they'll entrust the computer to them? Even if they do - what about book smart types who are all but useless in a practical environment? I personally know atleast three people who can rhyme off each of the IRQs used in a standard PC and what their base functionality is, along with physical (base) memory addresses and ranges and their utility. However, I wouldn't trust him much further than a basic Windows installation in practise, and in the operations centre of even a small LAN is the last place I want to see them.
As to the answers you gave to the questions - excellent. I'd certainly trust you (then and now) with my computer. However, back then I likely wouldn't have entrusted you with a corporate LAN, even a moderately sized company LAN. Many computer techs I've dealt with (not for myself) aren't able to answer those questions with any degree of reason.
The questions were off the top of my head; they're by no means any sort of official screening process - just a few ideas to get the person into the mindset that "My computer is important, I should do atleast a little investigation before I leave it with someone". The most important thing is how you feel about the people who are going to be working on your system. Can you talk to the techs, or do they hide in the back and leave you with the sales people? Does the store give you the feeling that they know what they're doing, or is it an airbrushed location with slick salespeople and no foundation?
Word of mouth and the experience of people you know is an invaluable tool when selecting a technician (which is why I suggested talking to other people and neighboring businesses). I take my car to my current mechanic because my good friend has been using him for nearly 15 years, and his family used him even before that. He's good at what he does, he's honest (quit scoffing; he is!), and he's always treated me fairly. He gives me discounts and nominal things at no charge because I'm a loyal customer. (Things like free bulbs for brake lights, turn signals, free top-ups of some of my fluids, he waives some labour charges, etc.).
Again, we have a case of 'exception vs. rule'. Can you attest to all 14 year olds being both proficient enough not to cause equipment damage or data loss, and having the humility to say "I don't know what I'm doing" and hand problems off to someone more qualified/experienced? In my experience, and having worked in a high school with a little over 700 students I feel I'm qualified to say this - no, they do not.
I was also an experienced, knowledgeable 14 year old who already had 5 years' worth of experience, but I couldn't (and for very good reason) directly get work to do; I had to do it behind an exising company, who took responsibility for both my continued training and my actions should I screw up (which 14 year olds with 5 years of experience tinkering tend to do more often than 40 year olds with 20 years worth of professional experience - regardless of how good you were)
We've already seen (and discussed) countless examples of how and why government certification mandates don't work anyways, but yes, if common sense were actually more 'common', thuere are innumerable problems with this world that would dissapear.
We were talking about people who don't want to get their data corrupted. If all you want is to get "a freakin' computer repaired" and you don't care about your data (in which case, why are you responding to this article?) you can go to any Joe Tech and pay $20/hour for whatever labour he may give you.
Sorry, I hope you don't feel I was over-generalizing; I was trying to clarify a point, namely that if people are overly concerned with the store they're visiting, they could use some of my suggestions to become more comfortable with the business they're preparing to deal with. You'll note that I also mentioned using small computer stores and taking them with a grain of salt. My employer started in a home office, then moved to a small office above a grocery store, and eventually found his way to a store front. The problem, however, is the fact that small computer shops running in a low-overhead environment are a dime a dozen, and there's no guarantee that someone who's been running in a "Box With DSL" for three months is qualified, educated, or experienced, or that they'll still be there in a week when you try to find them for a follow-up job (or to fix the job they didn't fix in the first place). As a matter of fact, we replaced a "box with DSL" store with a ... less than qualified individual, and through months of hard work, determination, and convincing took over all of his former customers in the building and repaired his less than adequate work. (I'll spare the gory details; but believe me, there are a lot of them).
As someone else already alluded to; if the store has a decent location and/or television commercials they "must be doing something right". Moreover, they have more interest (more to loose) by shutting down the location, and are generally more trackable/accountable to the customer base.
The Good Samaritan Law, if I recall my readings correctly, also holds people liable for damages if they see an assault in progress and do nothing to assist.
This doesn't only apply to medical professionals; it applies to regular citizens equally.
Does anybody remember the "Good Samaritan Law"?
There is a fundamental problem with this notion. When people bring their computer to you, you are put into a position of trust. You are their authority over what needs to be done with their machine. These people don't understand that 99% of computer problems can be fixed (with varying degrees of difficulty), so they take you at your word.
When you tell these people that they will just have to grin and bear through re-installing all of their applications and re-configuring the settings it took them months to learn they could change in the first place - many of them will believe you. Why? Because they have no choice. It's your duty to give them the choice; to service their computer properly and professionally, or at the very least to inform them that they have a choice.
I hate to bandy a cliche about, but you, sir, are the reason so many people are calling for standards in our industry. When best effort isn't even made, it gives other technicians a bad name.
You may have had many repeat customers thanks to your "RRR" methodology, but I've gained dozens upon dozens of customers - individual and business alike - due to people like you. Usually it takes time to gain their confidence because of it, I might add.
That became a non-issue years ago. I'd be surprised if even 1% of computer shops 'repair' computer components; that's what RMA is for. When we find a faulty component, we replace it. If it's covered under warranty, we send it away. If not, we bill them. But why would a person with $900 worth of quality (read; not WalMart) components spend money on a completely new system when they could get away with a $100 component card and an hour's labour?
Moreover, many problems that are encountered are software driven. What part do you replace to make KaZaA, Outlook, Netscape, or your favourite game load again, or to remove the virus infiltration?
Software issues aren't so easily solved. Formatting is all well and good, but it can't make short work of re-installing and re-configuring dozens of software packages, and re-configuring environment settings for multiple users, or ... Moreover, we still have to find and back up all required data, so there are still applicable labour charges.
I'm sure people said the same thing as you about automobile repairs at some time or another, but we still pay to have them fixed. Sometimes it just costs more to replace the unit when you consider the hidden, after the fact costs involved.
If your data is that important, you've been backing up regularly, so the point is moot.
While your computer is in the shop, you can rest assured because you've got a library of tapes, CD-R[W]s, etc. with your data - integrity checked - stored safely in a lock box.
People who aren't savvy enough to repair their own systems probably shouldn't uninstall their hard disk drive (which, as has already been pointed out, is the most likely source of the problem in the first place), letalone install a different drive before taking the machine for repair.
Probably the most common problem I've encountered with people who repair their own computers is the ignorance of the ZIF (Zero Insertion Force) concept, which will result in bent, broken, or crossed pins (which can/will cause electrical shorts, possibly permanently damaging components).
I never reccomend that any of our computer illiterate customers open their own PCs (warranty issues notwithstanding). This isn't to supplement our bottom line; in fact, quite the opposite. If our customers were to service their own machines, we'd likely sell more parts (replacing damaged parts) and charge labour for their installation on top of the initial issue.
There are already laws concerning this; blackmail is illegal already and can find the tecnician in federal prison, not just having their license revoked. If you've got sensitive data on your system and are worried about it, draft a contract and have them sign it.
Two points;
Don't forget the contract lawyer who writes and verifies the contracts that assure the customer that you will not maintain a copy of their data for a prolonged period of time, that you do not insure the integrity of the data from the moment they leave your location, that you will not view or use their data, ...
Of course, along with mal-practise insurance you also have to figure in about $5k/year in re-training, plus certification costs for each and every employee. "What, that's LAST YEAR'S A+?!?"
Exactly!
I too fix dozens of computers every month for people who had their friend who "really knows computers" work on it, and the work ranges from slightly to extraordinarily incompetent in most cases. Businesses get roped into bad deals with incompetent computer techs, too, and it's entirely preventable.
Some steps to ensure the integrity of your data;
- How long have you been doing this?
- Have you worked at and/or operated any other businesses recently?
- What do you know about {insert system configuration here}?
- What are your labour rates? (Hint: established, knowledgeable businesses will tend to have firm, hourly labour rates. Joe Computer Guy will work for a coffee, a cheeseburger, 'like 20 bucks', etc.)
- How long have you been in this location?
- What steps would you take to ensure the integrity of my data?
- What type of warranty do you offer?
- Do you guarantee your labour? How?
If the company wants your business, they'll take the time to answer your questions and make you feel confident. Some will even invite you, if you don't feel comfortable, to take your business elsewhere. If they seem like they really, REALLY want your business, be wary.There are any number of things you can do to ensure that you can trust the people you're leaving your computer with; a lot of which can be asessed in about 30 seconds when you walk in the door. Caveat Emptor has to apply, and if people are going to blindly trust someone on their word (hint; smooth talkers aren't neccesarily the best people for the job!), then IMNSHO they deserve whatever perils they may encounter.
I have real trouble symapthizing with someone who entrusted their computer to a 14 year old whiz-kid and wound up losing all their data and had components blow up on them shortly afterwards. Even businesses who aren't computer savvy should be able to recognize a snake-oil salesman when they see one coming. They should also have a firm contract, reveiwed by their lawyer if they're large enough to warrant, that spells out exactly what the technician will and will not do, and gives timeframes for completion of work. All too often I've seen incompetent contractors charging hourly rates for weeks on end for a three day job, just because they can't figure it out. Are you paying for someone's learning curve? Have someone stay in the room with them and see what they're donig. If they're reading manuals more than they're working, or if you hear an excess of profanity with little positive result, chances are you're funding their mis-education.
I really don't want to see government, who (from personal experience) have clue #0 about information technology, mandating certification levels for computer stores. While it would be nice to see much of our local competition shut down, it would also add a lot of additional headache to an otherwise low margin, slumping industry.
Interesting; my threading layout had this post displayed right above yours. Between this and the "Don't trust us as a source of secure activex controls" fiasco - how are we expected to trust code they're certifying?
Me thinks it's time Microsoft got out of the signing business altogether. It's even giving them a bad rap.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Aside from the fact that doing tech support for a product does not give you intricate knowledge of the internal function of the system; the Windows 2000 operating system is the Windows NT kernel (originating from Microsoft and IBM's partnered development of OS/2) with the Windows 95/98 interface, with some enhancements, new filesystem support (NTFS is reminiscant of HPFS), and multi-user support enhancements over NT's kludged multi-user capabilities. (The NT kernel, their user interface(s), and their filesystems were not designed initially for multi-user support).
I'd quote history pages for you, but the resources on the Internet are so plentiful I'd just be seen as karma whoring.
Apart from the blatant contradiction of this statement (if they re-wrote it from scratch, what did they "remove"?) - how are we to believe you've come aquainted with this information?
I can see it now... "Load this proprietary, binary, non-free kernel mod in order to run Media Player!"
That sounds like theoretical versus actual management. Have you ever worked in a large IS department? (Greater than 250 workstations in each of more than one location)
They patented a gene sequence. A sequence that probably exists, and has existed in millions of women for thousands of years. It's like patenting a phallic shaped appendage that dangles from approximately 1 of every 2 individuals, or blue tinted irises in the eyes of North American males. It's a ridiculous, prohibitive patent and I applaud my government for telling this corporation to stick it.
If, and only if, the patent covers the specific methods by which to identify the presence of these sequences I will agree that there should be some renumeration to the corporation, but it's unreasonable to expect to have patients shipped down to Utah (on whose nickel, I might add?) to perform the tests at triple the cost they could be performed here at home. Why can't the company atleast permit the tests to be performed locally with royalties transferred to the company?
Myriad is being completely unreasonable, and I really hope the Ontario government wins and sets a precedent against gene sequence patents. Nobody has the right to patent something that's existed in my body since my conception; period.
Imaging a wide area network isn't as simple as all that. Having a 'flunky' image, say, 2000 machines within a (potentially) 500KM radius would be a week-long endeavour; during business hours as well as overtime. Distributed imaging solutions would chew up precious WAN bandwidth, not to mention time, not to mention the high potential for failure over a less-reliable-than-LAN link, so you'd require a person on-site at each location. This person would update their local copy of the workstation image (which, BTW, would probably fit on three or four CDs; not one) on an imaging server and push the image to the local clients.
This chews up a lot of LAN bandwidth and time, even after hours, and requires a lot of manpower (someone physically at each location). This would push the changes across the entire WAN in a very long time period. In other words, by the time you were done 'updating' your WAN, you'd have to start the process all over again with the next batch of updates.
This, of course, is assuming that each and every workstation configuration is identical. Hardware and/or software differences mean different workstation images. So now you have to have a copy of each hardware configuration in your lab to create/update each new image before you make it available. You then have to account for all software differences (ie; graphics artists will have one suite of applications while CAD designers another, marketting/sales people another, accounting people another, etc.) meaning the potential for several images per hardware setup, meaning an entire day of image, update, test, re-create image on server, image a second workstation, test, verify, push image to remote location(s), repeat for next image / hardware setup.
Imaging workstations is only ideally suited for environments with similar hardware and software needs, converged into large, localized groupings on high bandwidth connections. Satellite offices on a corporate WAN aren't a likely candidate for such an update procedure.
Damn! My Toshiba isn't cool enough for people to put their hands in MY lap!