I have friend who used to work at HP and still owns stock. Two things he says:
1. a. He is not for the merger
b. Does not have a single friend who is for the merger
c. Does not have a single friend who knows
of another co-worker who is for the merger
2. a. He does not like Carly
b. See 1b
c. See 1c
Too bad to see a company run by engineers now being led by a history major(i think).
So according to your logic, I should be able to blast at 200 decibells, "Come to my store" at all hours of the day? Including outside your house when you sleep?
And don't try to stop me cause that would be limiting my free speech?
What kind of upgrade path does any computer have that you didn't build yourself(or a friend).
Anyway upgrade paths always go the route of the motherboard. If this is a standard then you should be able to buy a new one. Of course with this thing buying a new motherboard is buying a new system.
Nortel uses different SNMP vendors for their SNMP agents. They may have a few home grown SNMP agents but usually this makes little business sense and is the exception not the rule.
Therefore, look forward to a fun weekend patching:)
Sorry, I happen to know that MS SNMP agent was crap. Ask anyone who knows. Net-SNMP along with some other commerical vendors are simply superior.
You should have seen the original MS agent on NT 4.0 it was very shoddy.
They still don't support SNMPv3.
I also don't doubt that if MS wanted to their SNMP agent would be solid, they simply aren't interested in this right now.
Further, I thought every one who hated MS had to write it M$
But you do make a interesting point. I must admit, while I spoke the truth, it was cheap shot.
That's like saying my plane is Not Vulnerable to crashing, of course this is because I never fly it.
So I can put OpenBSD is in the same class as CPM, TI-99 4A, Windows 3.1, etc...;)
It means that certain packets might crash a MS machine, but those same packets would not effect a Linux(running net-snmp), Solaris(running their agent),etc machine.
You gotta understand what OULU does, they throw tons of packets at every SNMP agent known to man. Then they see which packets kill which agent.
They will do the same to every other protocol over the next few years(I believe)
Slashdot Mirror
You may be right. One thing to understand is that the big share holders are the mutual fund folks and they are voting(right or wrong) for the merger.
I have friend who used to work at HP and still owns stock. Two things he says:
1. a. He is not for the merger
b. Does not have a single friend who is for the merger
c. Does not have a single friend who knows
of another co-worker who is for the merger
2. a. He does not like Carly
b. See 1b
c. See 1c
Too bad to see a company run by engineers now being led by a history major(i think).
For what it's worth.
Good grief.
So according to your logic, I should be able to blast at 200 decibells, "Come to my store" at all hours of the day? Including outside your house when you sleep?
And don't try to stop me cause that would be limiting my free speech?
Ack! It was the raft with a pole(trireme) boat that sunk my battleship
Maybe this is obvious but does the $100 include the processor or not?
If not what does an 800MHz ~cost?
For those who hail from America, that's about 6.7in by 6.7in
;)
What kind of upgrade path does any computer have that you didn't build yourself(or a friend).
Anyway upgrade paths always go the route of the motherboard. If this is a standard then you should be able to buy a new one. Of course with this thing buying a new motherboard is buying a new system.
Funny how you assume a typo means I don't understand the correct use of the apostrophe.
But thanks for calling me an idiot.
Dear sir,
Let me give you a clue:
1. It won't work. This should be obvious by now.
2. It will tick folks like me off and we will turn to illegal copies(which btw I have none right now)
3. Most people don't want to steal.
4. People like orginal's, whether it be cars, books, movies, music, basecard cards, etc
5. People won't follow idiot laws unless they are forced to. Can you force them?
6. There's got to be a happy medium, but this ain't it
There now, I feel a little bit better.
It really dosn't matter to me, because I don't own a burner. Play mp3 off my win box, and suck at graphics :/
That's the funniest post I have seen on SlashDot yet.
Then again I haven't been here too long.
And I now see what you mean, I should have been clearer.
That's right because telnet is so secure.
And logging into 1,000 devices so much fun.
huh?
I am trying to figure this one out.
Yes, it is true you need to be careful with SNMPv1, SNMPv2c. SNMPv4 is a long ways off if ever.
SNMPv3 is secure over the wire, so am i missing your point.
Not even close. I would suspect that most vendors use commerical SNMP agents. Especially the embedded folks.
For someone who seems to be knowledgable you sure stretch the truth alot.
I doubt it, the problems are all different but related :)
No, as to having a patch ready when the announcement came out. MS had plenty of time to fix this.
Think Man!
Wishful thinking.
:)
Nortel uses different SNMP vendors for their SNMP agents. They may have a few home grown SNMP agents but usually this makes little business sense and is the exception not the rule.
Therefore, look forward to a fun weekend patching
Sorry, I happen to know that MS SNMP agent was crap. Ask anyone who knows. Net-SNMP along with some other commerical vendors are simply superior. You should have seen the original MS agent on NT 4.0 it was very shoddy. They still don't support SNMPv3. I also don't doubt that if MS wanted to their SNMP agent would be solid, they simply aren't interested in this right now. Further, I thought every one who hated MS had to write it M$ But you do make a interesting point. I must admit, while I spoke the truth, it was cheap shot.
What a crock of crap. BSD was not first. I will assume you are one of those trolley things.
A security problem with SNMPv1 is that passwords are sent clear text.
A security problem with TCP is spoofing is poosible,
This problem is the implementation of the protocol by the vendors.
If I overloaded an http request and it caused the server to crash is this a problem with the implementation of the http server or the HTTP protocol?
I don't have an objection, its just that people say it's a problem with the protocol is it not just the implementation(coding) of it.
Hoping to help folks understand.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
:)
That's like saying my plane is Not Vulnerable to crashing, of course this is because I never fly it. So I can put OpenBSD is in the same class as CPM, TI-99 4A, Windows 3.1, etc... ;)
It means that certain packets might crash a MS machine, but those same packets would not effect a Linux(running net-snmp), Solaris(running their agent),etc machine. You gotta understand what OULU does, they throw tons of packets at every SNMP agent known to man. Then they see which packets kill which agent. They will do the same to every other protocol over the next few years(I believe)
Assuming this is Wes, well said.
No, it is NOT. Re-read the article.