The comment just below is correct. One way to assure hard drive temperature is low is to put space above and below each hard drive, and have an internal case fan that moves the air around inside the case.
We bought the straps we use from a surplus store, and we don't know how to describe them. They are very flexible nylon, with holes. The nylon is stiff enough to hold the fan, but flexible enough to prevent conducting vibration.
Nothing in the article, and nothing in the comments above, fully explains the benefits of Asterisk for a small business or home. Transferring calls to a second line? Voicemail to email? What else?
Please don't visit and comment on Slashdot discussions in which you
have no interest.
I find that I am interested in only about one-twentieth of the
articles on Slashdot. I was interested in this article, and was surprised to
see people doing an anger trip over it.
Three points: 1) Roland does not have much chance of making money from
his Slashdot articles. (See quote below.) 2) He puts a lot of work into his
articles, which may be the reason they get accepted by Slashdot. 3) By
complaining unreasonably, you have made him more famous. I was only vaguely
aware of him until now, because of a few complaining comments. I didn't know
he had a web site of his own until now.
"I have not seen a SINGLE slashdot article attributed to Roland
that requires travelling through his blog.
"Every single time I have seen his articles, the header always links
to his sources. Only at the footer do you have the option to go to his site
and see a more thorough writeup.
"I have never been forced to view Roland's site just to see the
article.
"Compare and contrast with an article posted from the NY
Times...."
Yes, what I said is misleading. So, here's a correction: There are 3 [three] passwords: 1) The certificate, 2) The user name password, and 3) A hidden password, apparently some kind of an SID. I don't know for sure, because it is not documented, apparently.
However, as I said, Microsoft Technical Support verified that there are problems with stand alone computers, that have never been part of a domain.
Could you try restoring to a different computer, that has never been part of a domain? The documentation implies again and again that your procedure would work, but it doesn't.
You say above, "Anyone can export their EFS key for backup purposes using the certificates snap-in. This will work regardless of installation."
I've tried restoring to a stand-alone computer many times, without success. MS Technical Support says it can't be done. I'm very interested to know if you can make it work, and how. In Windows XP, the data is also tied to another, randomly generated number that is hidden from the user.
To test this, it is necessary to restore to a different installation of Windows XP, one that is not a clone of the computer on which the backup was made. This simulates actual use, where there was a system crash.
This is what most EFS users think, and it is wrong. Backing up the certificate is not enough to recover your data!! Don't believe me? Try it! I did.
Try restoring your data to a different computer with the same login name and passowrd, after restoring the certificate backup. You will get an access error.
The problem is that people are faithfully backing up their certificates, and discovering later that there is, effectively, another password, an SID, I think, but it is not documented, required to recover their encrypted data.
True. However, you didn't bother to read this entire thread. Most of the cases of loss of data with EFS occur on stand alone computers that have never been part of a domain. Also, there are postings by people who have lost their data because of some problem with the domain controller computer.
As, I said, and you ignored, the problems with stand alone computers have been verified by Microsoft Technical support.
The documentation is very misleading. Backing up the certificate, in the minds of many (former) EFS users, backs up everything needed to decrypt the files. That's what the documentation seems to say. However, the behavior has changed since Windows 2000.
That's not what is happening. EFS seems very well documented. It takes considerable analysis to determine that what the documentation seems to say is not correct, and, for those who "upgraded" from Windows 2000, that a backup is no longer a backup.
I was told by a Microsoft Technical Support representative that the procedure you are recommending does not work. I've tried it, and they are right, it doesn't work.
The title is, "Designating a Data Recovery Agent in a Stand-Alone Environment". That is VERY misleading. The Data Recovery Agent works only if you happen to know the other password, generated by Windows XP. If you put the same login name and password on another computer, you cannot recover your files, because the hidden password will be different.
The DRA works only if you are using the original installation of Windows. If you have a system crash, you lose EVERYTHING. Your backup is NOT a backup! That's cruel.
Someone with your knowledge and ability can no doubt figure some way to back up the other password. However, most people are misled, and many are losing data, judging from complaints on the Microsoft forums.
EFS encrypts with two passwords, one is a hidden password generated by Windows XP. Backing up one password does not actually prevent data loss, because there is a hidden password that is not backed up. That's my best understanding, after discussing this with Microsoft Technical Support.
You said, "This is another example of mod-by-agreement. Anyway, EFS is documented perfectly well."
Correction: This is another example of someone on Slashdot acting sure when he knows nothing about the issue, and didn't even read the document at his first link in his Google Search: Microsoft Windows XP - Data Recovery and Data Recovery Agents, which says:
"The default design for the EFS recovery policy is different in Windows XP Professional than it was in Windows 2000 Professional. Stand-alone computers [using Windows XP] do not have a default DRA, but Microsoft strongly recommends that all environments have at least one designated DRA.
"In a Windows 2000 environment, if an administrator attempts to configure an EFS recovery policy with no recovery agent certificates, EFS is automatically disabled. In a Windows XP Professional environment, the same action enables users to encrypt files without a DRA. In a mixed environment an empty EFS recovery policy turns off EFS on Windows 2000 computers, but only eliminates the requirement for a DRA on Windows XP Professional computers."
This information means that you can lose your files in Windows XP in a way that you could not lose them in Windows 2000. Microsoft made this change, but provided no on-screen warning.
The Microsoft document quoted above says, "Stand-alone computers do not have a default DRA,..."
It should say, Stand-alone computers CANNOT have a DRA that allows decryption of files from a different computer with the same user name and password.
As I mentioned, this was verified by Microsoft Tecnhical Support representatives, as was the information in my parent post.
You said above, "I believe the process can be started with a simple cipher/r." This is a VERY serious matter. People lose their files!!! You should not be posting comments in which you take a seemingly sure position, but that sureness is based on "belief".
I'm guessing that his backups were encrypted and he didn't realize that the encryption was tied to his user password, and to an undocumented hidden number associated with his user profile. Creating another account with the same login name and password does NOT allow decryption.
Who would guess that the encryption was insecure? When you read Microsoft's documentation, there is a lot of talk of file recovery, but the documentation doesn't say that it applies only to computers that are members of a Windows domain.
I've read the many scattered, poorly written documents about EFS. I find them very misleading. For example, the information above does not say that it applies only if the encrypting computer is part of a Windows domain.
Be very, very careful when using the Windows XP built-in file encryption,
called EFS (Encryping File System).
EFS is very poorly documented. The encryption is tied to your user
password in a way that is apparently not documented. EFS depends on being part
of a Windows 2003 Server domain in a way that is not clearly documented; if
you are using Windows XP on a stand alone computer, there are situations in
which you will lose your files forever.
Microsoft technical support agrees with what I just said, and provides
no help or fixes.
The official Microsoft forums contain the complaints of many people
who have lost their files due to problems with EFS. One man said he lost 11
years of research.
People complain about Microsoft every day on Slashdot, but I've never
seen a discussion by anyone who seemed to realize how bad Microsoft truly is.
To an extreme degree, the U.S. culture is not one in which a business leader finds a way to automate and then decides to take life easy. The U.S. history is one in which efficiency has typically led to expansion, sometimes huge expansion. Henry Ford, for example.
Everything you said is worthwhile to consider. However, there are two
factors you didn't mention, turnover and inelastic resources. When you
implement automation software, the amount of automation does not change. All
that happens is that a machine is the robot, not a human.
Humans have a low tolerance for being robots, especially those who can
think well enough to be useful in an office. So, you left out a cost of not
automating: After a year, Jenny gets tired of being a robot at your company
and gets a job being a robot somewhere else. That way she is at least able to
experience a change of environment. The cost of finding and hiring and
training another Jenny is $6,000. That's another big reason automation
software pays for itself.
But, as they say on those late-night pushy commercials, that's not
all. Jenny's manager supervises her and 5 others like her. It's a serious pain
to manage 5 humans who are largely being asked to be robots. So, there is high
turnover among managers, too, when there is low machine automation.
Another huge factor is inelastic resources. You may want Jenny to
accomplish more than is possible for one person without automation. You may
not have enough office space for another Jenny, or enough human resources to
train another person. You may not be able to find someone who can truly
replace Jenny, who is very loyal and knowledgeable about the myriad of details
in running a business. The problems associated with inelastic resources can
get very expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
It amazes me how bad technical people are at marketing. They apparently didn't see the possibility that their idea could be bad for the company.
AutoHotkey (for Windows) is excellent FOSS software. It does both text and program macros. It's the best of its kind, I think.
The comment just below is correct. One way to assure hard drive temperature is low is to put space above and below each hard drive, and have an internal case fan that moves the air around inside the case.
We bought the straps we use from a surplus store, and we don't know how to describe them. They are very flexible nylon, with holes. The nylon is stiff enough to hold the fan, but flexible enough to prevent conducting vibration.
Keep your drives cool! Each drive should have its own vibration-isolated fan. Use flexible nylon straps to isolate the vibration.
Using this method, we have had one failure in four years with 60 Western Digital drives.
Yes, it is a lot of work, and so is Slashdot. How can you object to Roland, but not object to Slashdot?
I have an interest in Roland's article, and I am commenting because I don't want to see them discouraged.
Froogle search: SPA-3000.
Nothing in the article, and nothing in the comments above, fully explains the benefits of Asterisk for a small business or home. Transferring calls to a second line? Voicemail to email? What else?
Froogle search for the Digium card: Wildcard TE110P
T1 hardware: 24-Port FXS Analog Gateway (SIP).
Please don't visit and comment on Slashdot discussions in which you have no interest.
I find that I am interested in only about one-twentieth of the articles on Slashdot. I was interested in this article, and was surprised to see people doing an anger trip over it.
Three points: 1) Roland does not have much chance of making money from his Slashdot articles. (See quote below.) 2) He puts a lot of work into his articles, which may be the reason they get accepted by Slashdot. 3) By complaining unreasonably, you have made him more famous. I was only vaguely aware of him until now, because of a few complaining comments. I didn't know he had a web site of his own until now.
Quote from a comment to an article objecting to Roland's articles, which are sometimes posted on Slashdot:
"I have not seen a SINGLE slashdot article attributed to Roland that requires travelling through his blog.
"Every single time I have seen his articles, the header always links to his sources. Only at the footer do you have the option to go to his site and see a more thorough writeup.
"I have never been forced to view Roland's site just to see the article.
"Compare and contrast with an article posted from the NY Times...."
I will test this again tomorrow.
Interesting. I tried that many times and was not able to make it work. I was told by Microsoft Technnical Support that it would not work.
Is it possible that the two computers you used for test were clones of each other? Then they would have the same SIDs.
No comments yet, and already slashdotted.
Yes, what I said is misleading. So, here's a correction: There are 3 [three] passwords: 1) The certificate, 2) The user name password, and 3) A hidden password, apparently some kind of an SID. I don't know for sure, because it is not documented, apparently.
Thank you for your detailed reply.
However, as I said, Microsoft Technical Support verified that there are problems with stand alone computers, that have never been part of a domain.
Could you try restoring to a different computer, that has never been part of a domain? The documentation implies again and again that your procedure would work, but it doesn't.
You say above, "Anyone can export their EFS key for backup purposes using the certificates snap-in. This will work regardless of installation."
I've tried restoring to a stand-alone computer many times, without success. MS Technical Support says it can't be done. I'm very interested to know if you can make it work, and how. In Windows XP, the data is also tied to another, randomly generated number that is hidden from the user.
To test this, it is necessary to restore to a different installation of Windows XP, one that is not a clone of the computer on which the backup was made. This simulates actual use, where there was a system crash.
This is what most EFS users think, and it is wrong. Backing up the certificate is not enough to recover your data!! Don't believe me? Try it! I did. Try restoring your data to a different computer with the same login name and passowrd, after restoring the certificate backup. You will get an access error.
The problem is that people are faithfully backing up their certificates, and discovering later that there is, effectively, another password, an SID, I think, but it is not documented, required to recover their encrypted data.
True. However, you didn't bother to read this entire thread. Most of the cases of loss of data with EFS occur on stand alone computers that have never been part of a domain. Also, there are postings by people who have lost their data because of some problem with the domain controller computer.
As, I said, and you ignored, the problems with stand alone computers have been verified by Microsoft Technical support.
The documentation is very misleading. Backing up the certificate, in the minds of many (former) EFS users, backs up everything needed to decrypt the files. That's what the documentation seems to say. However, the behavior has changed since Windows 2000.
That's not what is happening. EFS seems very well documented. It takes considerable analysis to determine that what the documentation seems to say is not correct, and, for those who "upgraded" from Windows 2000, that a backup is no longer a backup.
You simply disagree with Microsoft Technical Support, that's clear.
I was told by a Microsoft Technical Support representative that the procedure you are recommending does not work. I've tried it, and they are right, it doesn't work.
The title is, "Designating a Data Recovery Agent in a Stand-Alone Environment". That is VERY misleading. The Data Recovery Agent works only if you happen to know the other password, generated by Windows XP. If you put the same login name and password on another computer, you cannot recover your files, because the hidden password will be different.
The DRA works only if you are using the original installation of Windows. If you have a system crash, you lose EVERYTHING. Your backup is NOT a backup! That's cruel.
Someone with your knowledge and ability can no doubt figure some way to back up the other password. However, most people are misled, and many are losing data, judging from complaints on the Microsoft forums.
EFS encrypts with two passwords, one is a hidden password generated by Windows XP. Backing up one password does not actually prevent data loss, because there is a hidden password that is not backed up. That's my best understanding, after discussing this with Microsoft Technical Support.
I'm very interested to know if other people have experience with other encrypting file systems.
TrueCrypt seems excellent, however, the recent bug fixes look somewhat serious. Is TrueCrypt mature?
You said, "This is another example of mod-by-agreement. Anyway, EFS is documented perfectly well."
Correction: This is another example of someone on Slashdot acting sure when he knows nothing about the issue, and didn't even read the document at his first link in his Google Search: Microsoft Windows XP - Data Recovery and Data Recovery Agents, which says:
"The default design for the EFS recovery policy is different in Windows XP Professional than it was in Windows 2000 Professional. Stand-alone computers [using Windows XP] do not have a default DRA, but Microsoft strongly recommends that all environments have at least one designated DRA.
"In a Windows 2000 environment, if an administrator attempts to configure an EFS recovery policy with no recovery agent certificates, EFS is automatically disabled. In a Windows XP Professional environment, the same action enables users to encrypt files without a DRA. In a mixed environment an empty EFS recovery policy turns off EFS on Windows 2000 computers, but only eliminates the requirement for a DRA on Windows XP Professional computers."
This information means that you can lose your files in Windows XP in a way that you could not lose them in Windows 2000. Microsoft made this change, but provided no on-screen warning.
The Microsoft document quoted above says, "Stand-alone computers do not have a default DRA,..."
It should say, Stand-alone computers CANNOT have a DRA that allows decryption of files from a different computer with the same user name and password.
As I mentioned, this was verified by Microsoft Tecnhical Support representatives, as was the information in my parent post.
You said above, "I believe the process can be started with a simple cipher
I'm guessing that his backups were encrypted and he didn't realize that the encryption was tied to his user password, and to an undocumented hidden number associated with his user profile. Creating another account with the same login name and password does NOT allow decryption.
Who would guess that the encryption was insecure? When you read Microsoft's documentation, there is a lot of talk of file recovery, but the documentation doesn't say that it applies only to computers that are members of a Windows domain.
I've read the many scattered, poorly written documents about EFS. I find them very misleading. For example, the information above does not say that it applies only if the encrypting computer is part of a Windows domain.
Be very, very careful when using the Windows XP built-in file encryption, called EFS (Encryping File System).
EFS is very poorly documented. The encryption is tied to your user password in a way that is apparently not documented. EFS depends on being part of a Windows 2003 Server domain in a way that is not clearly documented; if you are using Windows XP on a stand alone computer, there are situations in which you will lose your files forever.
Microsoft technical support agrees with what I just said, and provides no help or fixes.
The official Microsoft forums contain the complaints of many people who have lost their files due to problems with EFS. One man said he lost 11 years of research.
People complain about Microsoft every day on Slashdot, but I've never seen a discussion by anyone who seemed to realize how bad Microsoft truly is.
To an extreme degree, the U.S. culture is not one in which a business leader finds a way to automate and then decides to take life easy. The U.S. history is one in which efficiency has typically led to expansion, sometimes huge expansion. Henry Ford, for example.
Everything you said is worthwhile to consider. However, there are two factors you didn't mention, turnover and inelastic resources. When you implement automation software, the amount of automation does not change. All that happens is that a machine is the robot, not a human.
Humans have a low tolerance for being robots, especially those who can think well enough to be useful in an office. So, you left out a cost of not automating: After a year, Jenny gets tired of being a robot at your company and gets a job being a robot somewhere else. That way she is at least able to experience a change of environment. The cost of finding and hiring and training another Jenny is $6,000. That's another big reason automation software pays for itself.
But, as they say on those late-night pushy commercials, that's not all. Jenny's manager supervises her and 5 others like her. It's a serious pain to manage 5 humans who are largely being asked to be robots. So, there is high turnover among managers, too, when there is low machine automation.
Another huge factor is inelastic resources. You may want Jenny to accomplish more than is possible for one person without automation. You may not have enough office space for another Jenny, or enough human resources to train another person. You may not be able to find someone who can truly replace Jenny, who is very loyal and knowledgeable about the myriad of details in running a business. The problems associated with inelastic resources can get very expensive.