When are people going to realize that first, parties with a vested interest in the matter, such as OSCON, will hold this or a biased opinion. Secondly, the only opinion that matters is that of a judge or a jury. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. Finally, a judge or jury is unlikely to render an opinion on the matter for another two to three years so, the constant rehashing of some OSS member's take is completely pointless.
Give it a rest. People need to focus on the positive aspects of Open Source and stop dwelling on this lawsuit. Regardless of the outcome, having this "news" constantly at the forefront is only going to damage Linux and Open Source due to the FUD factor.
This should be of no surprise to anyone familiar with Diebold. You may have noticed that these guys are the makers of bank ATMs, among other banking and security equipment. Most of these ATMs, especially the older ones, use only 56bit encryption. 128bit is available in the form of a ridiculously expensive chip which also costs a few hundred dollars labor to have a tech come out and stick it in. Most banks, being the biggest cheap-skates in business, are unwilling to spend the money for these upgrades so, many of the ATMs that you regularly use likely have 56bit encryption at best.
hey,whaddayaknow, it configures itself! damn, that was hard...
That's great! I agree it is easy to configure on a single box. But some of us have a few more boxes to be concerned about than the one on our desk.
Imagine the workload if you were responsible for reconfiguring/re-addessing 10,000 boxes, or at my former employer 120,000 boxes. Imagine if half of them required static addresses, not everything or everyone uses DHCP. Then think about the routers, switches, printers, alarm systems, time clocks, environmental control systems, monitoring systems, DNS records, firewall rules, VPNs, access servers, etc, etc, etc.
Personally, I am not looking forward to reconfiguring EVERYTHING in my organization, or even my home for that matter. It would be a LOT of work and for the next few years at least, IPV4 works fine and I don't have to do all that work.
IPV6 isn't catching on because it will require a lot of work for EVERYONE to reconfigure EVERY machine on the netwaork. Right now there is NO driving reason to force this and no one wants to do it. Contrary to the myth that has been spouted for years now about the lack of IPV4 addresses, there is no shortage of IPV4 addresses right now. NAT and proxies have made it such that there are plenty of IP4 addresses to go around. At least for now.
Windows programs use the Winsock API for network access. This means that since Winsock is IPV6 enabled, all the Windows applications are also IPV6 enabled. The only issues are going to be things like apps that require an IPV4 address be entered into a four octet field. Obviously an IPV6 address will not fit in such a field but the app could still work, depoending on what it does with the address. If the app relies in a DNS name in the field rather than the actual four octets, the it will work seemlessly through Winsock.
Apache 1.3 & Opera are the only ones listed that do not cuurently support IPV6 adequately. So what?!? This will be an issue when, 2010???? IPV6 is still far from wide spread implementation. When the time comes Opera will be updated with the necessary support. As for Apache. Well, hopefully by 2010 everyone will have stepped up to 2.x or maybe even 3.x.
It is possible to roll out IPV6 right now, the infrastructure and applications are all "capable". But it will require a great deal of effort and there is NO motivating factor, right now, to make everyone put forth the effort.
When the time comes that everyone HAS to implement IPV6 for some reason, they will. For now, the reason still isn't there and almost no one will.
You don't give any specifics, not even about the size of the organization, much less planned growth and call volume so, no one here can give you a legitimate answer. But, what you do tell us is that you are way out of your league on this decision and if the company is larger than 10 people, you could be putting yourself and the company in a grave situation. There are many legal requirements for phone systems (think 911) that some smaller offerings do NOT address.
I strongly recommend that you contact a local provider (or three) of PBX/Key Systems and services and get them to come and do an analysis of your company's needs. They will then be able to recommend the right system for you. They will look at things like number of sets, growth plans, call busy minutes per day/month/year, fax needs, call center integration, voice mail, and much much more.
Finally, I would recommend that whom ever you do call be a dealer for Nortel. Notrel offers the best telephone equipment in the world (spare me the Definity crap) and has systems that support everything from 2 sets to 500,000 sets.
Indeed, nothing new here. I've been moving my phone around at all sorts of different angles, trying to control the reception, for years. It seems only natural that they would expand this "feature" to also manipulate the screen.
Well, as you have seen from the previous posts, the term snapshots is interpretted differently by different people.
If you mean an image of the disk, when you say snapshot, then you will have to use something like partimage or ghost4unix. These will require that the NT4 server be shut down while the image is taken. The Norton Ghost for Servers can do live images.
If you mean you want a point in time copy of the server's files, when you say snapshot, then Rsync is your friend, with Samba client. Look at this how-to for a quick and easy Rsync based rolling snapshot backup. The only problem with this method is that you will lose the NTFS permission attributes on the backed up files.
Take a look at the site 66.220.17.45 which claims to be LOP.com. Pay particular attention to the title of the page. Notice the AyBrBtU in the title. All your base are belong to us. These guys are no good. Shields up! Now Slashdot the crap out of them.
No they are different. Let's start with an IPSec VPN.
IPSec VPNs are designed to be "networks" that encrypt the data that traverses them. This data is between two or more real networks, not just individual hosts. These VPNs are usually configured to completely conceal the contents including source/destination IP addresses of the networks traversing the VPN. These VPNs being actual "networks" also carry network traffic such as routing information and can even be rigged up enough to carry other protocols such as IPX.
SSH on the other hand is primarily intended to encrypt sessions between two hosts, rather than networks as is the case with IPSec. While it is possible to configure an SSH tunnel to forward multiple ports and there for multiple sessions between the hosts, it is far more difficult to configure SSH tunnels to carry whole network traffic and I am not aware of any way to carry protocols besides IP.
HTTPS is used to encrypt individual web sessions between two hosts. It is not able to due portforwarding or caryy other network traffic. The similarity between HTTPS and SSH is that they both use SSL/TLS as their means of encryption.
So, three different protocols for three different uses with very little overlap in functionality.
I'm sorry if you are being genuine, as I do not mean to offend but.....
This smells like a slightly new twist on good old domain prospecting, parking, hijacking. You want someone else to build a site that will require a lot of work and moreover, A LOT of bandwidth and in return you will allow them to use your name. So, if this new superfluous site is successful, you get the credit/money with virtually no investment, monetary or sweat equity.
I doubt very much that anyone will take you up on this offer.
You are approaching the problem from the wrong end. You are asking; how do you support this technology under less than ideal conditions? What you should be doing is asking; how do I keep 10,000 pictures while I am on the road for a year?
The answer is low tech rather than high tech. First you need to get a good 35mm film camera. Stash 5 or ten rolls of film in your rucksack and have a good time. The next time you pass a post box, drop your exposed film in it, addressed to a friend or relative. When running low on film, pick some up in the next town. 35mm film is available in almost any town anywhere. It is also far cheaper than CF cards or self powered hard drives.
When you return home, have the film developed at your local drug store, or where ever you prefer, and check the little box requesting a CD-ROM copy of the roll or rolls. This way you have the digital format that you desire as well as a quality film picture that would require a digital camera of at least 5 megapixels to get the same quality and resolution.
This approach is also far safer from the perspective of protecting your pictures. It is entirely possible that, over the course of a year, your rucksack will be lost, abused, battered and especially soaked with rain. By regularly shipping out your pictures, the risk will only be to a few rolls of film rather than everything, as would be the case when a supersized CF card gets crushed or wet. Even if you lose the camera at some point it can be replaced with only the loss of a few rolls of film, rather than everything.
I saw this story om Google News early this morning and contemplated submitting it to Slashdot but, the thought of all the ass jokes made me decide against the submission. Seems I was right.
But, the story did make me think. It made me think that with technology and terrorist parranoia, we have now past into a positively sureal world. A world where we will be watched by machines that will decide if we are "too fidgety" and act against us. A sureal world where we either try to convince ourselves that this is a good thing or we make a joke out of it. Really, it should be a joke but, it is no joke. It is a new reality, no matter how sureal it seems.
It's still rather early in the game for there to be many failures. Though the momentum is growing, there are still very few businesses that have made the jump to Open Source. With only few businesses trying it there are only few chances for failures.
I'm sure that there will be failures. There are always failures, even in proprietary software shops. There are many major IT projects that have been based on well known and respected proprietary applications like SAP or CA Unicenter an a slew of others that have failed miserably.
The failures will be due to many factors, poor planning, poor implementation, poor software or who knows what else. There will always be failures and as Open Source spreads into enterprises around the world there will be IT projects based on Open Source that will be abysmal failures.
But, the fact that there will be failures doesn't mean that the concept is a failure or even that the software is a failure. As I said there have been many multi-million dollar failures with the likes of SAP and CA but, I don't think that anyone would classify either of these companies or their products as failures.
One last note: If you are looking for failure, you will surely find it. Why are you looking for failure?
Is it too early to declare the death of Bluetooth, or can we can expect more out of it?
No. It's dead. 802.11x is a far better solutioin for most everything. 802.11x offers better speed, range and availabillity. Sure, HP doesn't have 802.11x embedded in its printers, yet. But, once they give up on Bluetooth, you might very well see printers with 802.11x.
When I first read that I immediately thought the number would get your name on the list, if it wasn't there before.
In the followup article, which I can't find the link to, a lady did call the number. The lady was basicaly told to buzz off but, could we have your name for our records? It's the conspiracy theorist's nirvanna.
The situation is really bad if you are named David Nelson. Here is a sad but true story about no fly lists and the very common name, David Nelson. There was also a followup story to this one but I am unable to find a link.
Just yesterday, I updated the firmware and reconfigured one of these with Konqueror running from a Knoppix CD. The only issue that I had was that Wine was not able to run their firmware update tool, which is just a GUI tftp.exe and the firware.bin. With Knoppix, I just did a tftp put firmware.bin and all was well.
I guess I didn't embrace the dot bomb generation or something. I can't generate any feeling of respect for a "company executive" that runs a weblog and moans about corporate issues publicly. It just isn't professional.
I'm sure that the Slash crowd won't like this opinion but it's mine. Flame on.
You would think that the developers could have come up with a real name for Foomatic, before releasing it. I've always hated that name and it is even worse when trying to explain it to someone who is not familiar with CUPS.
Slashdot Mirror
When are people going to realize that first, parties with a vested interest in the matter, such as OSCON, will hold this or a biased opinion. Secondly, the only opinion that matters is that of a judge or a jury. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. Finally, a judge or jury is unlikely to render an opinion on the matter for another two to three years so, the constant rehashing of some OSS member's take is completely pointless.
Give it a rest. People need to focus on the positive aspects of Open Source and stop dwelling on this lawsuit. Regardless of the outcome, having this "news" constantly at the forefront is only going to damage Linux and Open Source due to the FUD factor.
This should be of no surprise to anyone familiar with Diebold. You may have noticed that these guys are the makers of bank ATMs, among other banking and security equipment. Most of these ATMs, especially the older ones, use only 56bit encryption. 128bit is available in the form of a ridiculously expensive chip which also costs a few hundred dollars labor to have a tech come out and stick it in. Most banks, being the biggest cheap-skates in business, are unwilling to spend the money for these upgrades so, many of the ATMs that you regularly use likely have 56bit encryption at best.
hey,whaddayaknow, it configures itself! damn, that was hard...
That's great! I agree it is easy to configure on a single box. But some of us have a few more boxes to be concerned about than the one on our desk.
Imagine the workload if you were responsible for reconfiguring/re-addessing 10,000 boxes, or at my former employer 120,000 boxes. Imagine if half of them required static addresses, not everything or everyone uses DHCP. Then think about the routers, switches, printers, alarm systems, time clocks, environmental control systems, monitoring systems, DNS records, firewall rules, VPNs, access servers, etc, etc, etc.
Personally, I am not looking forward to reconfiguring EVERYTHING in my organization, or even my home for that matter. It would be a LOT of work and for the next few years at least, IPV4 works fine and I don't have to do all that work.
IPV6 isn't catching on because it will require a lot of work for EVERYONE to reconfigure EVERY machine on the netwaork. Right now there is NO driving reason to force this and no one wants to do it. Contrary to the myth that has been spouted for years now about the lack of IPV4 addresses, there is no shortage of IPV4 addresses right now. NAT and proxies have made it such that there are plenty of IP4 addresses to go around. At least for now.
Windows programs use the Winsock API for network access. This means that since Winsock is IPV6 enabled, all the Windows applications are also IPV6 enabled. The only issues are going to be things like apps that require an IPV4 address be entered into a four octet field. Obviously an IPV6 address will not fit in such a field but the app could still work, depoending on what it does with the address. If the app relies in a DNS name in the field rather than the actual four octets, the it will work seemlessly through Winsock.
Apache 1.3 & Opera are the only ones listed that do not cuurently support IPV6 adequately. So what?!? This will be an issue when, 2010???? IPV6 is still far from wide spread implementation. When the time comes Opera will be updated with the necessary support. As for Apache. Well, hopefully by 2010 everyone will have stepped up to 2.x or maybe even 3.x.
It is possible to roll out IPV6 right now, the infrastructure and applications are all "capable". But it will require a great deal of effort and there is NO motivating factor, right now, to make everyone put forth the effort.
When the time comes that everyone HAS to implement IPV6 for some reason, they will. For now, the reason still isn't there and almost no one will.
You don't give any specifics, not even about the size of the organization, much less planned growth and call volume so, no one here can give you a legitimate answer. But, what you do tell us is that you are way out of your league on this decision and if the company is larger than 10 people, you could be putting yourself and the company in a grave situation. There are many legal requirements for phone systems (think 911) that some smaller offerings do NOT address.
I strongly recommend that you contact a local provider (or three) of PBX/Key Systems and services and get them to come and do an analysis of your company's needs. They will then be able to recommend the right system for you. They will look at things like number of sets, growth plans, call busy minutes per day/month/year, fax needs, call center integration, voice mail, and much much more.
Finally, I would recommend that whom ever you do call be a dealer for Nortel. Notrel offers the best telephone equipment in the world (spare me the Definity crap) and has systems that support everything from 2 sets to 500,000 sets.
Indeed, nothing new here. I've been moving my phone around at all sorts of different angles, trying to control the reception, for years. It seems only natural that they would expand this "feature" to also manipulate the screen.
Well, as you have seen from the previous posts, the term snapshots is interpretted differently by different people.
If you mean an image of the disk, when you say snapshot, then you will have to use something like partimage or ghost4unix. These will require that the NT4 server be shut down while the image is taken. The Norton Ghost for Servers can do live images.
If you mean you want a point in time copy of the server's files, when you say snapshot, then Rsync is your friend, with Samba client. Look at this how-to for a quick and easy Rsync based rolling snapshot backup. The only problem with this method is that you will lose the NTFS permission attributes on the backed up files.
Here is the info on the addresses you provided.
Lop.com
Unit 12
571 Finchley Road
Hampstead
London, NW3 7BN
UK
Domain name: LOP.COM
Administrative Contact:
Live, Media webmaster@lop.com
Unit 12
571 Finchley Road
Hampstead
London, NW3 7BN
UK
+ 44 7817 130 743
Technical Contact:
Live, Media webmaster@lop.com
Unit 12
571 Finchley Road
Hampstead
London, NW3 7BN
UK
+ 44 7817 130 743
Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 12-Mar-2003.
Record expires on 06-Oct-2005.
Record Created on 07-Oct-1998.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.LOP.COM 66.220.17.5
NS2.LOP.COM 66.220.17.5
Take a look at the site 66.220.17.45 which claims to be LOP.com. Pay particular attention to the title of the page. Notice the AyBrBtU in the title. All your base are belong to us. These guys are no good. Shields up! Now Slashdot the crap out of them.
I really wanted to see the video but, the site requires Windows or MAc with Internet Explorer, cookies enabled and Windows Media Player.
I don't want to see anything that bad.
No they are different. Let's start with an IPSec VPN.
IPSec VPNs are designed to be "networks" that encrypt the data that traverses them. This data is between two or more real networks, not just individual hosts. These VPNs are usually configured to completely conceal the contents including source/destination IP addresses of the networks traversing the VPN. These VPNs being actual "networks" also carry network traffic such as routing information and can even be rigged up enough to carry other protocols such as IPX.
SSH on the other hand is primarily intended to encrypt sessions between two hosts, rather than networks as is the case with IPSec. While it is possible to configure an SSH tunnel to forward multiple ports and there for multiple sessions between the hosts, it is far more difficult to configure SSH tunnels to carry whole network traffic and I am not aware of any way to carry protocols besides IP.
HTTPS is used to encrypt individual web sessions between two hosts. It is not able to due portforwarding or caryy other network traffic. The similarity between HTTPS and SSH is that they both use SSL/TLS as their means of encryption.
So, three different protocols for three different uses with very little overlap in functionality.
I'm sorry if you are being genuine, as I do not mean to offend but.....
This smells like a slightly new twist on good old domain prospecting, parking, hijacking. You want someone else to build a site that will require a lot of work and moreover, A LOT of bandwidth and in return you will allow them to use your name. So, if this new superfluous site is successful, you get the credit/money with virtually no investment, monetary or sweat equity.
I doubt very much that anyone will take you up on this offer.
You are approaching the problem from the wrong end. You are asking; how do you support this technology under less than ideal conditions? What you should be doing is asking; how do I keep 10,000 pictures while I am on the road for a year?
The answer is low tech rather than high tech. First you need to get a good 35mm film camera. Stash 5 or ten rolls of film in your rucksack and have a good time. The next time you pass a post box, drop your exposed film in it, addressed to a friend or relative. When running low on film, pick some up in the next town. 35mm film is available in almost any town anywhere. It is also far cheaper than CF cards or self powered hard drives.
When you return home, have the film developed at your local drug store, or where ever you prefer, and check the little box requesting a CD-ROM copy of the roll or rolls. This way you have the digital format that you desire as well as a quality film picture that would require a digital camera of at least 5 megapixels to get the same quality and resolution.
This approach is also far safer from the perspective of protecting your pictures. It is entirely possible that, over the course of a year, your rucksack will be lost, abused, battered and especially soaked with rain. By regularly shipping out your pictures, the risk will only be to a few rolls of film rather than everything, as would be the case when a supersized CF card gets crushed or wet. Even if you lose the camera at some point it can be replaced with only the loss of a few rolls of film, rather than everything.
I saw this story om Google News early this morning and contemplated submitting it to Slashdot but, the thought of all the ass jokes made me decide against the submission. Seems I was right.
But, the story did make me think. It made me think that with technology and terrorist parranoia, we have now past into a positively sureal world. A world where we will be watched by machines that will decide if we are "too fidgety" and act against us. A sureal world where we either try to convince ourselves that this is a good thing or we make a joke out of it. Really, it should be a joke but, it is no joke. It is a new reality, no matter how sureal it seems.
It's still rather early in the game for there to be many failures. Though the momentum is growing, there are still very few businesses that have made the jump to Open Source. With only few businesses trying it there are only few chances for failures.
I'm sure that there will be failures. There are always failures, even in proprietary software shops. There are many major IT projects that have been based on well known and respected proprietary applications like SAP or CA Unicenter an a slew of others that have failed miserably.
The failures will be due to many factors, poor planning, poor implementation, poor software or who knows what else. There will always be failures and as Open Source spreads into enterprises around the world there will be IT projects based on Open Source that will be abysmal failures.
But, the fact that there will be failures doesn't mean that the concept is a failure or even that the software is a failure. As I said there have been many multi-million dollar failures with the likes of SAP and CA but, I don't think that anyone would classify either of these companies or their products as failures.
One last note: If you are looking for failure, you will surely find it. Why are you looking for failure?
Are there theoretical, political or economic reasons it couldn't work?,em>
Yes. All of the above.
Is it too early to declare the death of Bluetooth, or can we can expect more out of it?
No. It's dead. 802.11x is a far better solutioin for most everything. 802.11x offers better speed, range and availabillity. Sure, HP doesn't have 802.11x embedded in its printers, yet. But, once they give up on Bluetooth, you might very well see printers with 802.11x.
When I first read that I immediately thought the number would get your name on the list, if it wasn't there before.
In the followup article, which I can't find the link to, a lady did call the number. The lady was basicaly told to buzz off but, could we have your name for our records? It's the conspiracy theorist's nirvanna.
The situation is really bad if you are named David Nelson. Here is a sad but true story about no fly lists and the very common name, David Nelson. There was also a followup story to this one but I am unable to find a link.
But, you feel safe. Don't you?
Just yesterday, I updated the firmware and reconfigured one of these with Konqueror running from a Knoppix CD. The only issue that I had was that Wine was not able to run their firmware update tool, which is just a GUI tftp.exe and the firware.bin. With Knoppix, I just did a tftp put firmware.bin and all was well.
I guess I didn't embrace the dot bomb generation or something. I can't generate any feeling of respect for a "company executive" that runs a weblog and moans about corporate issues publicly. It just isn't professional.
I'm sure that the Slash crowd won't like this opinion but it's mine. Flame on.
Ximian has been Slashdotted for two plus days now, and you go and throw another Ximian link on the front page? Use your head. Sheesh
You would think that the developers could have come up with a real name for Foomatic, before releasing it. I've always hated that name and it is even worse when trying to explain it to someone who is not familiar with CUPS.