At the risk of being flamed for a pro-Microsoft comment, take a look at Windows Server 2003. Out of the box, it is pretty tightly locked down. No services are installed by default -- an admin has to proactively enable things like IIS, DNS, etc. Permissions are no longer defaulted to "Everyone Full Control" as they were in the past. While I'm sure that there will still be holes found, at least the ones provided by a default installation have been addressed.
Which is why a careful analysis is required before moving forward with any upgrade -- especially of the server OS. Exchange 2000 doesn't run on Windows 2003, but Exchange 2003 will. So you wait for Exchange 2003 and only upgrade your non-Exchange servers before that. Not really anything to be floored by.
It's very likely that the people suffering from this problem aren't idiots either. In fact, I would go so far to say that some of them are probably very intelligent people who are trying to provide a service to their organizations.
The discussion was about office packages. Not many companies pick and choose point products for each task. Most just pick an office suite and a mail client unless they use Exchange in which case they likely use Outlook.
Look around: there's a huge relationship between the mail client and the office suite.
Take a look at the beta of Office 2003 before going TOO far with this thought. I got the beta and installed it on my lab machine. After a VERY good experience (especially with the new Outlook), it's now running on my home desktop as well as my machine in the office. I don't generally run beta software like this, but for the new Outlook alone, it is WELL worth it.
I used Outlook, Word and Excel every day. The new versions aren't dramatic in their changes, with the exception of Outlook 11.
There's a catch to just switching to OpenOffice 1.0, 1.1, StarOffice, etc... Outlook.
Some will start talking about Evolution and others will say that it should just be dropped because it's a security nightmare. Unfortunatey, Evolution is nowhere near on par with Outlook and newer versions of Outlook are definitely safer than the old. Besides, your average user using Office KNOWS Outlook (unless GroupWise or Lotus Notes or something is being used of course).
Fighting Outlook is going to prove an uphill battle as time goes on. It's proven itself as an excellent client from the user perspective and Outlook 11 (still in beta) rocks.
I've used Evolution -- excellent product, but limited since it uses Outlook Web Access for communication with Exchange. I've also used and administered various version of GroupWise and *nix based mail systems. While Outlook/Exchange DO have their problems, they let me provide critical services to my users pretty easily.
I was looking for a comment like this. Here you have someone willing to teach the subject matter and obviously interested in making sure he learns it since he seems to be talking to people about it.
It boils down to this: if they don't do it, who will? If he doesn't teach this class, will someone who has a better handle on the subject matter come along and fit the other parameters? In your Congress scenario -- yep -- they should be making laws about technology. It's their jobs -- says so in the Constitution. I'll be the first to admit that they screw it up sometimes, but they have to do it.
Agree 100% - poster is both a jerk and an asshole. What know-it-all prick would make someone's life difficult over something so stupid? If he's THAT concerned about a potential problem, put the CD in a mailer, send it back to MS and go buy the program from teh school's bookstore or something instead of wasting someone's time trying to prove a ridiculous point.
I'd be willing to bet a whole lot of money that EVERY SINGLE software vendor out there has done the same damn thing. Install it, use it and enjoy, idiot.
If you look at the Lindows web site, you'll notice that their focus has changed from running Windows apps to integrating well with current environments by easily open Windows files, etc. Basically, rather than embracing Windows, they're working to get people to migrate and use native tools instead. I think that they realized just how hard the effort would be. That's not a reason to close the doors and call it quits. They're just working under a new strategy now.
I probably shouldn't admit this in a forum of people who obviously despise Lindows, but I have tried it and I did like it. I think I have a pretty good handle on OSs having used NetWare, Windows, UNIX, Linux, VMS, etc and I found Lindows very easy to install, very easy to navigate and -- more importantly -- very easy to get working on my Windows network.
Lindows isn't necessarily here for the hard core Linux user. It's for the masses. For similar reasons that hard core Linux/Unix folks hate Windows, they will hate Lindows.
I commend them for trying. Before version 3, I didn't think it would go anywhere, but after actually using it for a while, my opinion has changed.
It's up to them. If everything works like it should, market forces will dictate their policies. If enough people leave because of this, then they'll have to change -- if not, their policies are working for them.
If they're the only game in town, then I'd have a problem with it, but if I can just switch ISPs, no skin off my back.
The guy asked a simple question: Is there anything like Citrix that runs on Linux and that is either free or cheap?
I'm not sure where in that question you get the need to know the information that the person requested. Now - if you were the consultant that was hired to handle the project, that would be a different story, but he just asked for advice.
As for the KDE comment... I don't think he meant that -- on the surface -- it is ironic that the DOE was named KDE but rather that it is ironic because of the question that he is asking.
I've administered GroupWise 5.5, and tested 6.5 and also both Exchange 5.5 and 2000. GroupWise does work -- and it works well. In a lot of ways it works better than Exchange but in others not as well. It would be interesting if you could explain some of the thoughts behind your opinions on this.
OWA can work with Mozilla, Netscape, etc, but it's a pretty different experience and does not offer all of the functionality that OWA under IE does. Folders are in different locations on the screen, etc.
I don't think this would work mainly due to th economics. Orgnaizations are running on a shoe string and in some cases barely staying profitable. It could push a number of companies over the edge if all of a sudden it was required that they hire a bunch of contractors.
...for thieves. Damn it. Now when I want to rob someone, I either need to gouge out their eyes, cut off their head or drag them to the ATM machine and stick their face in front of it to get their money. Gone are the good ol' days of guns.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares if he knows or doesn't know something? All you have to do is lok at the article and IGNORE IT. We aren't being plagued with anything at all.
At the risk of being flamed for a pro-Microsoft comment, take a look at Windows Server 2003. Out of the box, it is pretty tightly locked down. No services are installed by default -- an admin has to proactively enable things like IIS, DNS, etc. Permissions are no longer defaulted to "Everyone Full Control" as they were in the past. While I'm sure that there will still be holes found, at least the ones provided by a default installation have been addressed.
I completely and 100% "agree" with you on this point! :-)
Which is why a careful analysis is required before moving forward with any upgrade -- especially of the server OS. Exchange 2000 doesn't run on Windows 2003, but Exchange 2003 will. So you wait for Exchange 2003 and only upgrade your non-Exchange servers before that. Not really anything to be floored by.
It's very likely that the people suffering from this problem aren't idiots either. In fact, I would go so far to say that some of them are probably very intelligent people who are trying to provide a service to their organizations.
The discussion was about office packages. Not many companies pick and choose point products for each task. Most just pick an office suite and a mail client unless they use Exchange in which case they likely use Outlook.
Look around: there's a huge relationship between the mail client and the office suite.
Take a look at the beta of Office 2003 before going TOO far with this thought. I got the beta and installed it on my lab machine. After a VERY good experience (especially with the new Outlook), it's now running on my home desktop as well as my machine in the office. I don't generally run beta software like this, but for the new Outlook alone, it is WELL worth it.
I used Outlook, Word and Excel every day. The new versions aren't dramatic in their changes, with the exception of Outlook 11.
There's a catch to just switching to OpenOffice 1.0, 1.1, StarOffice, etc... Outlook.
Some will start talking about Evolution and others will say that it should just be dropped because it's a security nightmare. Unfortunatey, Evolution is nowhere near on par with Outlook and newer versions of Outlook are definitely safer than the old. Besides, your average user using Office KNOWS Outlook (unless GroupWise or Lotus Notes or something is being used of course).
Fighting Outlook is going to prove an uphill battle as time goes on. It's proven itself as an excellent client from the user perspective and Outlook 11 (still in beta) rocks.
I've used Evolution -- excellent product, but limited since it uses Outlook Web Access for communication with Exchange. I've also used and administered various version of GroupWise and *nix based mail systems. While Outlook/Exchange DO have their problems, they let me provide critical services to my users pretty easily.
You DID leave the "office" before said explosion, right?
So... were you able to make it work?
I was looking for a comment like this. Here you have someone willing to teach the subject matter and obviously interested in making sure he learns it since he seems to be talking to people about it.
It boils down to this: if they don't do it, who will? If he doesn't teach this class, will someone who has a better handle on the subject matter come along and fit the other parameters? In your Congress scenario -- yep -- they should be making laws about technology. It's their jobs -- says so in the Constitution. I'll be the first to admit that they screw it up sometimes, but they have to do it.
Agree 100% - poster is both a jerk and an asshole. What know-it-all prick would make someone's life difficult over something so stupid? If he's THAT concerned about a potential problem, put the CD in a mailer, send it back to MS and go buy the program from teh school's bookstore or something instead of wasting someone's time trying to prove a ridiculous point.
I'd be willing to bet a whole lot of money that EVERY SINGLE software vendor out there has done the same damn thing. Install it, use it and enjoy, idiot.
If you look at the Lindows web site, you'll notice that their focus has changed from running Windows apps to integrating well with current environments by easily open Windows files, etc. Basically, rather than embracing Windows, they're working to get people to migrate and use native tools instead. I think that they realized just how hard the effort would be. That's not a reason to close the doors and call it quits. They're just working under a new strategy now.
Can LindowsOS run software written for Microsoft® Windows? and How can I best "migrate" from using Microsoft® Windows to using LindowsOS?
I probably shouldn't admit this in a forum of people who obviously despise Lindows, but I have tried it and I did like it. I think I have a pretty good handle on OSs having used NetWare, Windows, UNIX, Linux, VMS, etc and I found Lindows very easy to install, very easy to navigate and -- more importantly -- very easy to get working on my Windows network.
Lindows isn't necessarily here for the hard core Linux user. It's for the masses. For similar reasons that hard core Linux/Unix folks hate Windows, they will hate Lindows.
I commend them for trying. Before version 3, I didn't think it would go anywhere, but after actually using it for a while, my opinion has changed.
It's up to them. If everything works like it should, market forces will dictate their policies. If enough people leave because of this, then they'll have to change -- if not, their policies are working for them.
If they're the only game in town, then I'd have a problem with it, but if I can just switch ISPs, no skin off my back.
The guy asked a simple question: Is there anything like Citrix that runs on Linux and that is either free or cheap?
I'm not sure where in that question you get the need to know the information that the person requested. Now - if you were the consultant that was hired to handle the project, that would be a different story, but he just asked for advice.
Another user below mentioned LTSP for which more information can be found at the LTSP project's web site.
There is a K12 LTSP project as well here.
As for the KDE comment... I don't think he meant that -- on the surface -- it is ironic that the DOE was named KDE but rather that it is ironic because of the question that he is asking.
Wow... whoever modded this as Flaimbait doesn't have much in the way of a sense of humor...
Bullshit.
I've administered GroupWise 5.5, and tested 6.5 and also both Exchange 5.5 and 2000. GroupWise does work -- and it works well. In a lot of ways it works better than Exchange but in others not as well. It would be interesting if you could explain some of the thoughts behind your opinions on this.
OWA can work with Mozilla, Netscape, etc, but it's a pretty different experience and does not offer all of the functionality that OWA under IE does. Folders are in different locations on the screen, etc.
And if they went the route of emulating the processor vs virtualization, a massive performance hit would likely be suffered.
I don't think this would work mainly due to th economics. Orgnaizations are running on a shoe string and in some cases barely staying profitable. It could push a number of companies over the edge if all of a sudden it was required that they hire a bunch of contractors.
...for thieves. Damn it. Now when I want to rob someone, I either need to gouge out their eyes, cut off their head or drag them to the ATM machine and stick their face in front of it to get their money. Gone are the good ol' days of guns.
This story seems to indicate that Covad is already moving in the direction of exploring voice options.
Unfortunately, since this would not be a criminal case but rather a civil case, you might be up the creek and have to defend yourself.