I think that it is you that missed the networking class. Different IP addresses on the same subnet do NOT have to use the same gateway at all. It is in fact possible for a class C subnet (254 addresses) to have 127 hosts(workstations) and 127 routers on the same subnet. In this bizarre and highly unlikely scenario, each of the 127 hosts could have its own unique, personal gateway.
It is quite common for large or critical subnets to have multiple gateways for reliability or load distribution. Combine those gateways with Hot Standby Routing Protocol(HSRP) or Virtual Redundant Routing Protocol(VRRP) and you have very reliable gateways indeed.
The Mozilla page that you cited does not prove precedence in this case. The patent was filed for in May of 1999 and whom ever developed this (Microsoft or Mozilla) obviously did it before then. The Mozilla page has a Last modified date of April 1999 (as well as a last modified date of March 2000, WTF?). The close proximity of these dates would require greater proof of who exactly was first with this.
In the CNet article it says that Microsoft has no intention of enforcing the patent. I find that interesting since I seem to recall them saying the same thing about FAT up until their recent "licensing" scheme for FAT.
This isn't new. It looks way too much like the car from the James Bond film, The Man with the Golden Gun. The car used was the AMC Matador, a hideous vehicle from the 70's that looks far too similar to this new flying car for my tastes.
It should be fairly easy to place a dollar value on privacy. First we can geta value by looking at what marketers (or marketeers) are charging companies for your information. A list of 10,000 names and phone numbers can cost a mortgage company's telemarketing department tens of thousands of dollars. So, it's rather simple to place a dollar amount on the value on an individuals information. Compound that value with the multiple of times that the information was disclosed and throw in a percentage for damages and you find that privacy has a rather high cost.
And yes, they should reimburse people for breaches. Stupidity should definitely be painful.
He has decided that his problems are due to administrators, who are all clueless, and that he would be so much better off if his world was run by developers, that are all knowing.
The reality is that the authors problems are due to inept individuals and the corporate bureaucracy that keeps these inept individuals in place. The problems are not simply admins vs. developers. This is no different than any other profession.
There are countless bad administrators out there. Many/most do not deserve the title of Administrator. But, at the same time, there are just as many developers out there that should not be allowed near a keyboard and yet they are forcing new "applications" down end user's throats on a daily basis, "applications" that reduce productivity due to bad design and processing inefficiency, buggy and untested code, and a total lack of understanding of the business process.
There are far too many inept individuals on both sides of the fence. It is not about admins vs. developers.
One more thing, the author seems to understand that J2EE is a bad idea so, why does he continue to develop with it?
The tools you need to meet your needs are built in.
For determining who is logging in where and when, you simply need to enable auditing at the domain level.
If you want performance or utilization information then use Performance Monitor. It can be used either locally or remotely to monitor a mind boggling(and possibly useless) number of performance counters.
For monitoring the activities of the users, file level auditing can be used. For internet activities you need additional hardware/software than you said you had in the article.
If you want this information all agregated into a central location, use Task scheduler to run a hourly/nightly batch file to upload the logs and performance results to a central file server or database.
There are numerous thirdparty tools that do this things and much more but since you are working with donated hardware and software, I will assume that you have no budget to purchase additional tools. Perhaps a book or two on MCSE training would be helpful in letting you know about the many features and tools that are available in Windows 2000 but aren't discussed on Slashdot since most Slashdotters seem to only be experienced in Windows 98 and Windows XP home edition.
It seems odd to me that you wouldn't be able to recover accidental deletions
Why would this seem odd? None of the most widely used file systems allow for undelete. If you think the recycle bin is undelete try del *.* and then see what you can recover. The only one that really supports undelete, and does it really well, is Netware's Salvage utility.
There are kludgy solutions for FAT and NTFS but there really isn't a true deleted file recovery system in any of the mainstream file systems. That includes ext2/3, Reiser, and more.
If your lost files were text then strings and grep can probably get back a fair bit of your data but, it won't be an undeleted file. If the files weren't text then they are gone. Grieve and move on because unless you were storing the numbers to your swiss bank accounts in those files, you'll see that their loss isn't really the end of the world.
an obscure kernel vulnerability that allowed one person to gain control of one box
This statement is missing a qualifier that is very important: 'That we know of so far'. How do you know that there is only one person who has the exploit? How do you know that said person only rooted the Debian boxes. How do you know that a larger group of people don't have this exploit and don't already own a flotilla of zombie systems? How do you know that your box isn't owned by such a group at this very moment?
It is these "obscure kernel vulnerabilities", that we assume no one has an exploit for, that are the most dangerous of all. Vulnerabilities of this type allow very highly skilled crackers (with intentions unknown) to own countless systems and do what they will for extended periods of time without detection. Debian thinks that this is weeks old. Suppose that this is only the cracker's latest version of the exploit and that previous versions haven't owned those machines for months or years?
Has anyone been able to get the source from Watchguard? I've never been able to find sources from them. As for the written offer, I've never seen that either unless it is hidden away on their included CD-ROM.
While I am sure that there are numerous manufacturers out there that are blatantly violating the GPL in their use and distribution of Linux, that may not be the case with these manufacturers.
The GPL states that those that distribute GPLed software must provide the source to the recipients of the distributions upon request. That does NOT mean that they have to make the source available on their website. It means that people you receive the ditribution, in the form of the DVD player, must receive the source upon request. No one else is entitled to the source, only those that have received the distribution. It is even legal for them to refuse requests for the source from those who have not been distributed to, as in people who do not own the DVD players. This strict interpretation breaks down when these manufacturers make the software freely downloadable from their website in the form of firmware upgrades but, even in this case, the GPL does not require the distributor to make the source available on the website. They can still require formal requests before providiing the source.
Now, what the LKML does not say is, if the people concerned have made a formal request or not. It states that they examined the web site but there is no requirement for the DVD manucaturer to post the source on their website.
Like I said in the begining, they may be in violation of the GPL but there is insufficient evidence in the LKML posting to prove that. Remember that it is only a courtesy when distibutors make the sources available to all on their website. The GPL does not require them to do so at any time.
Is this surprising? Have you EVER gotten the advertised specs from your high tech products? Have you ever gotten 56K from a 56K modem? Have you ever gotten 2Mbps from a DSL provider? Have you ever gotten 17" viewable from your 17" monitor? Have you ever gotten 20GB from your 20GB hard drive?
The advertised specs are almost always inflated and unattainable. But, the sad thing is that consumers continue to allow the vendors to get away with it.
While there is no licensing requirement to remove your old Red Hat software, as others have pointed out, you are still correct. It is likely that you will have to remove your old Red Hat software because without purchasing an upgrade and subscription you will no longer be getting updates and this is unacceptable in an enterprise production environment.
That means that the more accurate way to view the statistic is that Red Hat has lost 10% of its existing customers. Now, the story doesn't say what their new customer subscription rate is compared to previous new customer subscription rates so, we aren't able to see the big picture. Is Red Hat's subscription customer base growing overall or not? I hope for their sake that it is growing. But, at my company, anything that causes a 10% loss in the existing customer base without massively increasing the new customer rate will result in close scrutiny and the likely termination of those responsible.
Why did he not ask Kevin Railsback who had the whole thing working some while ago?)"
He expected to get the results that he normally gets with most commercial software. Click Setup.exe, answer a question or two and it's done, up and running. Further configuration is not required though it may be desired.
The commercial vendors of Spamassassin have not improved the core product in any way. What they have improved is the packaging, the installation, the default configuration and the interface to modify that configuration. The stock SpamAssassin does not offer that although, Spamassassin setup is far more simple than some other packages out there.
In spite of the Do Not Call Registry, my phone still rings with sales weasels trying to get me to buy something. For some telemarkets, nothing has changed and the FTC is unable/unwilling to do anything about it. Other telemarketers have changed tactics, their calls are now veiled in the guise of surveys and "charities" but, by the end of the call you are being asked to buy something.
So what does this new upcoming law offer? I doubt very much that it will change anything. If anything does change, more than likely it will only be that more spammers will likely move offshore. A great deal of the spam I receive already originates in China or Russia, somewhat beyond the reach of US law.
Many of the pumps at Texaco stations have 4 or 5 inch lcd screen that is used for the display for such things as "Pay at the pump". After processing customer's credit information and gas grade selections the pumps displayed a looped video advertising various what not. In the midst of the loop was a BSOD that was displayed for some 30 seconds before the loop continued on.
The funniest part was that the pump itself was not blue screening. The BSOD was actually part of the looped video clip. The loop was displayed on all of Texaco's pumps with display screens, across the entire US for several months.
America spent what, 2-3 billion dollars to bring a hundred pound of rocks back from the moon. I'm sure they could do the same for Mars, given 50-60 billion dollars. So it's been proven that it is technically feasible. It has also been proven that it is not economically feasible.
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts there were more man-hours put into Linux than Windows XP.
If this is true, then it is a truely sad situation. While Linux does have many excellent facets and also has a few that Windows does not yet have, most rational people will agree that Linux has not yet reached the level of Windows XP. This statement will likely generate all sorts of knee-jerk remarks but, think about it. Even Red Hat, who offers Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation 3.0, recently stated that Linux is still not ready for the desktop.
If this is true then one must wonder why Linus doesn't utilize more of these available resources. Why does he instead have a relatively small group of hackers working on only a kernel? Why, with all his resources, is he not developing, embracing and extending a plethora of other operating system components and applications?
The fact is that while open source does offer the potential of having a very vast number of developers owrking on a project or multiple projects, the reality is that few developers actually participate. Combine this with the fact that they are driven to participate based on their interest or itch and we end up with a fine kernel, a few great apps and an abundance of mp3 players.
The potential is there for Linus to have more resources than Bill Gates but, the reality is that Linus has no where near the resources of Bill Gates.
Our only concern are the Cisco routers and their compability with RH9
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not aware of any compatibility issues between RH9 and Cisco routers. Frankly, I'm wondering how there could possibly be issues.
I understand what Red Hat is offering, as they no longer have a free version of their software. But, SuSE still offers a free FTP install. What does SuSE's academic version offer that the free FTP install does not?
My servers have all sorts of hardware that I want supported. My servers have NIC cards, video cards, SCSI cards, RAID Array controllers, Fibre Channel controllers, integrated out of band management controllers, hot-plug PCI controllers, and more. I really like it when the installer detects these and loads the modules for me rather than having to do it manually or recompiling the kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that it is you that missed the networking class. Different IP addresses on the same subnet do NOT have to use the same gateway at all. It is in fact possible for a class C subnet (254 addresses) to have 127 hosts(workstations) and 127 routers on the same subnet. In this bizarre and highly unlikely scenario, each of the 127 hosts could have its own unique, personal gateway.
It is quite common for large or critical subnets to have multiple gateways for reliability or load distribution. Combine those gateways with Hot Standby Routing Protocol(HSRP) or Virtual Redundant Routing Protocol(VRRP) and you have very reliable gateways indeed.
Why does this sound vaguely familiar?"
The Mozilla page that you cited does not prove precedence in this case. The patent was filed for in May of 1999 and whom ever developed this (Microsoft or Mozilla) obviously did it before then. The Mozilla page has a Last modified date of April 1999 (as well as a last modified date of March 2000, WTF?). The close proximity of these dates would require greater proof of who exactly was first with this.
In the CNet article it says that Microsoft has no intention of enforcing the patent. I find that interesting since I seem to recall them saying the same thing about FAT up until their recent "licensing" scheme for FAT.
This isn't new. It looks way too much like the car from the James Bond film, The Man with the Golden Gun. The car used was the AMC Matador, a hideous vehicle from the 70's that looks far too similar to this new flying car for my tastes.
It should be fairly easy to place a dollar value on privacy. First we can geta value by looking at what marketers (or marketeers) are charging companies for your information. A list of 10,000 names and phone numbers can cost a mortgage company's telemarketing department tens of thousands of dollars. So, it's rather simple to place a dollar amount on the value on an individuals information. Compound that value with the multiple of times that the information was disclosed and throw in a percentage for damages and you find that privacy has a rather high cost.
And yes, they should reimburse people for breaches. Stupidity should definitely be painful.
He has decided that his problems are due to administrators, who are all clueless, and that he would be so much better off if his world was run by developers, that are all knowing.
The reality is that the authors problems are due to inept individuals and the corporate bureaucracy that keeps these inept individuals in place. The problems are not simply admins vs. developers. This is no different than any other profession.
There are countless bad administrators out there. Many/most do not deserve the title of Administrator. But, at the same time, there are just as many developers out there that should not be allowed near a keyboard and yet they are forcing new "applications" down end user's throats on a daily basis, "applications" that reduce productivity due to bad design and processing inefficiency, buggy and untested code, and a total lack of understanding of the business process.
There are far too many inept individuals on both sides of the fence. It is not about admins vs. developers.
One more thing, the author seems to understand that J2EE is a bad idea so, why does he continue to develop with it?
The tools you need to meet your needs are built in.
For determining who is logging in where and when, you simply need to enable auditing at the domain level.
If you want performance or utilization information then use Performance Monitor. It can be used either locally or remotely to monitor a mind boggling(and possibly useless) number of performance counters.
For monitoring the activities of the users, file level auditing can be used. For internet activities you need additional hardware/software than you said you had in the article.
If you want this information all agregated into a central location, use Task scheduler to run a hourly/nightly batch file to upload the logs and performance results to a central file server or database.
There are numerous thirdparty tools that do this things and much more but since you are working with donated hardware and software, I will assume that you have no budget to purchase additional tools. Perhaps a book or two on MCSE training would be helpful in letting you know about the many features and tools that are available in Windows 2000 but aren't discussed on Slashdot since most Slashdotters seem to only be experienced in Windows 98 and Windows XP home edition.
It seems odd to me that you wouldn't be able to recover accidental deletions
Why would this seem odd? None of the most widely used file systems allow for undelete. If you think the recycle bin is undelete try del *.* and then see what you can recover. The only one that really supports undelete, and does it really well, is Netware's Salvage utility.
There are kludgy solutions for FAT and NTFS but there really isn't a true deleted file recovery system in any of the mainstream file systems. That includes ext2/3, Reiser, and more.
If your lost files were text then strings and grep can probably get back a fair bit of your data but, it won't be an undeleted file. If the files weren't text then they are gone. Grieve and move on because unless you were storing the numbers to your swiss bank accounts in those files, you'll see that their loss isn't really the end of the world.
an obscure kernel vulnerability that allowed one person to gain control of one box
This statement is missing a qualifier that is very important: 'That we know of so far'. How do you know that there is only one person who has the exploit? How do you know that said person only rooted the Debian boxes. How do you know that a larger group of people don't have this exploit and don't already own a flotilla of zombie systems? How do you know that your box isn't owned by such a group at this very moment?
It is these "obscure kernel vulnerabilities", that we assume no one has an exploit for, that are the most dangerous of all. Vulnerabilities of this type allow very highly skilled crackers (with intentions unknown) to own countless systems and do what they will for extended periods of time without detection. Debian thinks that this is weeks old. Suppose that this is only the cracker's latest version of the exploit and that previous versions haven't owned those machines for months or years?
You are correct. I had not seen the initial LKML post.
Their refusal to provide the source upon request is a clear violation.
Has anyone been able to get the source from Watchguard? I've never been able to find sources from them. As for the written offer, I've never seen that either unless it is hidden away on their included CD-ROM.
While I am sure that there are numerous manufacturers out there that are blatantly violating the GPL in their use and distribution of Linux, that may not be the case with these manufacturers.
The GPL states that those that distribute GPLed software must provide the source to the recipients of the distributions upon request. That does NOT mean that they have to make the source available on their website. It means that people you receive the ditribution, in the form of the DVD player, must receive the source upon request. No one else is entitled to the source, only those that have received the distribution. It is even legal for them to refuse requests for the source from those who have not been distributed to, as in people who do not own the DVD players. This strict interpretation breaks down when these manufacturers make the software freely downloadable from their website in the form of firmware upgrades but, even in this case, the GPL does not require the distributor to make the source available on the website. They can still require formal requests before providiing the source.
Now, what the LKML does not say is, if the people concerned have made a formal request or not. It states that they examined the web site but there is no requirement for the DVD manucaturer to post the source on their website.
Like I said in the begining, they may be in violation of the GPL but there is insufficient evidence in the LKML posting to prove that. Remember that it is only a courtesy when distibutors make the sources available to all on their website. The GPL does not require them to do so at any time.
Is this surprising? Have you EVER gotten the advertised specs from your high tech products? Have you ever gotten 56K from a 56K modem? Have you ever gotten 2Mbps from a DSL provider? Have you ever gotten 17" viewable from your 17" monitor? Have you ever gotten 20GB from your 20GB hard drive?
The advertised specs are almost always inflated and unattainable. But, the sad thing is that consumers continue to allow the vendors to get away with it.
Perhaps this report may be of interest. Certainly worth considering before plunging into AT&T's more expensive services.
While there is no licensing requirement to remove your old Red Hat software, as others have pointed out, you are still correct. It is likely that you will have to remove your old Red Hat software because without purchasing an upgrade and subscription you will no longer be getting updates and this is unacceptable in an enterprise production environment.
That means that the more accurate way to view the statistic is that Red Hat has lost 10% of its existing customers. Now, the story doesn't say what their new customer subscription rate is compared to previous new customer subscription rates so, we aren't able to see the big picture. Is Red Hat's subscription customer base growing overall or not? I hope for their sake that it is growing. But, at my company, anything that causes a 10% loss in the existing customer base without massively increasing the new customer rate will result in close scrutiny and the likely termination of those responsible.
Why did he not ask Kevin Railsback who had the whole thing working some while ago?)"
He expected to get the results that he normally gets with most commercial software. Click Setup.exe, answer a question or two and it's done, up and running. Further configuration is not required though it may be desired.
The commercial vendors of Spamassassin have not improved the core product in any way. What they have improved is the packaging, the installation, the default configuration and the interface to modify that configuration. The stock SpamAssassin does not offer that although, Spamassassin setup is far more simple than some other packages out there.
I wonder how Novell got Gnome to pay for developing their new email client?
In spite of the Do Not Call Registry, my phone still rings with sales weasels trying to get me to buy something. For some telemarkets, nothing has changed and the FTC is unable/unwilling to do anything about it. Other telemarketers have changed tactics, their calls are now veiled in the guise of surveys and "charities" but, by the end of the call you are being asked to buy something.
So what does this new upcoming law offer? I doubt very much that it will change anything. If anything does change, more than likely it will only be that more spammers will likely move offshore. A great deal of the spam I receive already originates in China or Russia, somewhat beyond the reach of US law.
Sounds like Pink Tie Linux ala Cheap Bytes
Many of the pumps at Texaco stations have 4 or 5 inch lcd screen that is used for the display for such things as "Pay at the pump". After processing customer's credit information and gas grade selections the pumps displayed a looped video advertising various what not. In the midst of the loop was a BSOD that was displayed for some 30 seconds before the loop continued on.
The funniest part was that the pump itself was not blue screening. The BSOD was actually part of the looped video clip. The loop was displayed on all of Texaco's pumps with display screens, across the entire US for several months.
America spent what, 2-3 billion dollars to bring a hundred pound of rocks back from the moon. I'm sure they could do the same for Mars, given 50-60 billion dollars. So it's been proven that it is technically feasible. It has also been proven that it is not economically feasible.
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts there were more man-hours put into Linux than Windows XP.
If this is true, then it is a truely sad situation. While Linux does have many excellent facets and also has a few that Windows does not yet have, most rational people will agree that Linux has not yet reached the level of Windows XP. This statement will likely generate all sorts of knee-jerk remarks but, think about it. Even Red Hat, who offers Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation 3.0, recently stated that Linux is still not ready for the desktop.
If this is true then one must wonder why Linus doesn't utilize more of these available resources. Why does he instead have a relatively small group of hackers working on only a kernel? Why, with all his resources, is he not developing, embracing and extending a plethora of other operating system components and applications?
The fact is that while open source does offer the potential of having a very vast number of developers owrking on a project or multiple projects, the reality is that few developers actually participate. Combine this with the fact that they are driven to participate based on their interest or itch and we end up with a fine kernel, a few great apps and an abundance of mp3 players.
The potential is there for Linus to have more resources than Bill Gates but, the reality is that Linus has no where near the resources of Bill Gates.
Our only concern are the Cisco routers and their compability with RH9
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not aware of any compatibility issues between RH9 and Cisco routers. Frankly, I'm wondering how there could possibly be issues.
I understand what Red Hat is offering, as they no longer have a free version of their software. But, SuSE still offers a free FTP install. What does SuSE's academic version offer that the free FTP install does not?
My servers have all sorts of hardware that I want supported. My servers have NIC cards, video cards, SCSI cards, RAID Array controllers, Fibre Channel controllers, integrated out of band management controllers, hot-plug PCI controllers, and more. I really like it when the installer detects these and loads the modules for me rather than having to do it manually or recompiling the kernel.