We got caught out by Welchia by someone kindly connecting an infected laptop directly into the network behind the firewalling. Ironically this was possible due to a mistake in SMS package deployment (was done hastily - my fault).
My solution was to deploy honeypot windows machines running snort which reported into a central SQL server database.
Using Windows scripting host, I then wrote a script that ran periodically on a network management workstation which queried the database, creamed off the last machine that was an infector and using the wonderful free PS Tools from Sysinternals automatically determined what OS the machine was running (PSInfo), updated its antivirus signatures (PSExec), de-wormed the machine using the Symantec "FixWelch" utility (again using PSExec), decided if the machine was up to service pack spec (data from PSInfo) and if not service packed it (PSExec) then applyed the patches to prevent re-infection (PSExec).
All worked a treat.
I'm kind of glad we got hit because as a result I can now insist machines get patched (previously people would complain about a "box on the screen" (SMS installer)) while also being able to remove machine admin rights across the board and ban any machines that are not ours from being connected on pain of a disciplinary offence.
A lot of work but ultimately, I WIN. MOO HAR HAR!!
What would be the point? Do you think there is any money to be made by knowing what thousands of geeks who know better than to click on popup ads are doing on the net?
I won't try and defend this article because basically your analysis regarding the patches is correct, however it should be noted that Apple Security patches are delivered to you via Software Update, and installed with the click of a button. Does Windows do this? Hell to be honest I don't know, but it seems to me that if it DID do this, wouldn't most people have installed the security patches Microsoft releases and thereby reducing the effectiveness of the virii or security breaches in question?
Microsoft has Windows Update (Which unless I'm mistaken, they came up with before Apple). Unfortuantely automatic updating is turned off by default however, whereas Apple have this functionality turned on by default (which was a very good move). Microsoft are changing this behaviour as basically as Apple obviously understand, unless you have things happen for people automatically and bug them about it constantly, they simply will not do it.
I'm also forced to question your reasoning with regard to the recommendation to use an anti-virus program being strange. With OS X, as I hope you too can attest, data loss isn't a big problem, but that doesn't mean I still don't back up regularly. It's a matter of prudence, I pray that I don't lose data, but I expect that I will. I pray that my Mac won't get a virus, but I expect that eventually it will. For you to say it seems stranges strikes me as a little odd, especially since you administer such a large network. Redundancy is what it's all about in the computer biz, because the "better safe than sorry" attitude saves money in the long run.
I agree totally - antivirus is a very good idea, yet - there are no OSX viruses - if there are no viruses, then how does the antivirus even work?? what sort of signature library does it have? That's the strange part!
I started a point-by-point refutation of everything that you said, but then I realized that it would be pointless because you are just spreading FUD.
Actually I'm debunking FUD but lets carry on.
Most of it doesn't even make sense, as when you claim that hardware for Linux is free ("typical computing tasks? Linux can do all that too - for free"),
I didn't say hardware for Linux is free - that would be extremely silly now wouldn't it? There are certain things I think that we can take for granted, such as I'm 96.5% certain that readers here understand what Linux is and that computer hardware is not "free". Fair comment one must always take the cost of the hardware into account but its the OS that we are talking about here.
...and how you claim that the author's statement that there are no Mac viruses in part because there aren't enough Macs is wrong, because there would be viruses if there were more Macs).
I said people attack the most prevailant system, which is presently Windows. If OS X was as prevailant as Windows is now, there would be more attacks targetted at it. the amount of attacks scales with popularity.
I don't believe you actually own a Mac, because you are about as hostile toward Macs as some of the most rabid Windows fanboys I've run into. If you do actually own an iBook, here's my suggestion: sell it. We don't need people like you spreading this sort of FUD.
Well I certainly do own an iBook and how you can call me hostile towards Macs I find quite frankly confusing (did you READ what I wrote? I like OSX). I like OS X a lot - (I certainly wouldn't have bought an iBook if I didn't, and I definitely would not be thinking about a G5) plus I do support (amongst other things) a 200 host Mac network complete with XServe (which I personally recommended & installed).
The article I debunked is FUD - it makes contradictory points. For example, this paragraph:
So, if you're a Windows user, you could sit tight, apply all the patches, worry about all the viruses and hope that the spring's Service Pack will solve most of the security problems without breaking other key features of Windows or interfering with programs you use.
This is clearly putting the concept of patches in a negative light, and inserting FUD into the process by implying that applying a patch may cause problems. Some facts:
OS X needs patching, (as do all other current operating systems.) Applying patches can be risky, however its important to keep up to date. Apple suffered from this exact issue recently with the 10.2.8 update causing problems for many users.
So Apple are "guilty" of two of the alleged "crimes" of Windows.
It would be like an airline saying something like "So if you fly with our competitors, sit tight and hope there are no bombs or terrorists on the plane with you" while trying to sell plane tickets. It's ridiculous.
It says that Microsoft release patches and puts that in a negative light and later on says that Apple release patches but it's "ok" because they are less frequent!
It also says (correctly, unless the "switchback" "virus" isnt a hoax) that there are no viruses for OSX, yet you should still run antivirus. Sophos, Symantec and Network Associates all produce OS X antivirus, which you have to admit is a little strange. I suppose they are selling insurance against future incidents.
If I've posted anything factually incorrect, then please set the record straight.
What is it with all the anonymous postings anyway? Why are people afraid to put their names to their opinions?
Windows is riddled with security flaws, and new ones turn up regularly. It is increasingly susceptible to all kinds of viruses, malicious Trojan horse programs and spyware. As a result, Windows users have been forced to spend more of their time and money supporting their computers.
ANY computer is susceptible to a virus written for it. Money? The last time I checked security patches were free.
Almost every week, they are supposed to install patches to the already patchy operating system to plug these security holes. And every few months, it seems, Windows users must quake in fear as some horrible new virus is created by the international criminal class that constantly targets Windows.
..and this is different to Apple Software Update how exactly? Yes people target Windows but that is simply because it is so widespread. Windows / OS X / Linux all require regular patches. This is not a practice limited to Microsoft.
But for consumers and small businesses, there's a simple way out of this endless morass: Buy an Apple Macintosh computer. There are no viruses on the Macintosh's excellent two-year-old operating system, called OS X. And the Mac is a terrific computer -- as good as, or better than, Windows for the typical computing tasks important to mainstream users.
No viruses.. Yet. And typical computing tasks? Linux can do all that too - for free.
It isn't impossible to write a virus for the Mac. The system isn't impenetrable. Mac users should still use antivirus software. But any virus or security problem that does emerge on the Mac is likely to be much less serious than the Windows security crisis. "Mac OS X hasn't had any viruses since the OS was launched," says Bill Rosenkrantz, the head of Macintosh products at Symantec, the big antivirus firm. "It's more difficult to attack the Apple system than Windows."
So, first we have how there are no viruses for OSX yet we should still run anti-virus? So what sort of signature library is this antivirus system going to have if there are no viruses?
So, if you're a Windows user, you could sit tight, apply all the patches, worry about all the viruses and hope that the spring's Service Pack will solve most of the security problems without breaking other key features of Windows or interfering with programs you use.
Er.. you mean like that OSX 10.2.8 update completely breaking many people's OS X install? Like that you mean?
Or, if the security issues are important to you, you could just buy a Mac when you shop for your next computer.
You see many PC hardware users dont have to shop for a new computer because upgrading the old one is possible. OS X is only "secure" until people start targetting it.
Here's why the Mac is so much less susceptible to viruses:
First, the Mac OS X operating system is built on Unix, an industrial-strength operating system used in business, science and education. And OS X doesn't enable users -- or hackers who hijack user accounts -- to alter certain core files and features of its Unix underpinnings. By contrast, Windows XP users are given "full administrator" privileges that viruses and hackers can usurp to do damage.
Log into a Mac as Root (with the chosen admin password as default) and you can modify anything you damn well please. Not making the root account obvious to users does nothing to stop a hacker with a buffer overflow exploit such as the recent BSD (which OS X is based on) SSH vulnerability for example.
Also, Apple ships every Mac with all the communications "ports," or conduits that listen for commands over networks, closed. On Windows, some of these ports are left open.
OMFG a port is open!!! Quick quick tell every web server admin they have port 80 open! They obviously are going to be hacked... because a PORT IS OPEN!!! Get a grip.
In addition, Macs constitute such a tiny share of the world's computers that t
what makes open MMORPG's interesting is the fact that emergent behaviour and gameplay will always be unpredictable.
I'm sure that many developers have designed an MMORPG only to discover after a while that players do things they never ever intended.
A successful developer will observe this behaviour and work with it rather than against it.
Ultimately it's the players that pay developer's wages - keeping them interested and happy is what it's all about. Preventing PvP play for example will cause many people who enjoy that sort of play to leave. From what I see many MMORPG developers try to keep people happy by having "no PvP" zones. The developers of Neocron have implemented this, however they received that many requests for no "safe" areas that they provide an entirely seperate server where there are no safe areas.
This is a technique I described at DNSCON last year.
I go one further though - once you start to get spam to an address that you registered with a specific company (say ticketmaster@mydomain.com for example) then reroute all mail to that address to the relevant abuse reporting addresses.
The result? By spamming you they automatically report themselves while you never see the spam.
Simply show them a lowish spec machine setup the way you would configure it and let them play with it for a bit. Explain the lack of cost - this normally gets people's attention.
Windows is riddled with security flaws, and new ones turn up regularly. It is increasingly susceptible to all kinds of viruses, malicious Trojan horse programs and spyware. As a result, Windows users have been forced to spend more of their time and money supporting their computers.
ANY computer is susceptible to a virus written for it. Money? The last time I checked security patches were free.
Almost every week, they are supposed to install patches to the already patchy operating system to plug these security holes. And every few months, it seems, Windows users must quake in fear as some horrible new virus is created by the international criminal class that constantly targets Windows.
..and this is different to Apple Software Update how exactly? Yes people target Windows but that is simply because it is so widespread. Windows / OS X / Linux all require regular patches. This is not a practice limited to Microsoft.
But for consumers and small businesses, there's a simple way out of this endless morass: Buy an Apple Macintosh computer. There are no viruses on the Macintosh's excellent two-year-old operating system, called OS X. And the Mac is a terrific computer -- as good as, or better than, Windows for the typical computing tasks important to mainstream users.
No viruses.. Yet. And typical computing tasks? Linux can do all that too - for free.
It isn't impossible to write a virus for the Mac. The system isn't impenetrable. Mac users should still use antivirus software. But any virus or security problem that does emerge on the Mac is likely to be much less serious than the Windows security crisis. "Mac OS X hasn't had any viruses since the OS was launched," says Bill Rosenkrantz, the head of Macintosh products at Symantec, the big antivirus firm. "It's more difficult to attack the Apple system than Windows."
So, first we have how there are no viruses for OSX yet we should still run anti-virus? So what sort of signature library is this antivirus system going to have if there are no viruses?
So, if you're a Windows user, you could sit tight, apply all the patches, worry about all the viruses and hope that the spring's Service Pack will solve most of the security problems without breaking other key features of Windows or interfering with programs you use.
Er.. you mean like that OSX 10.2.8 update completely breaking many people's OS X install? Like that you mean?
Or, if the security issues are important to you, you could just buy a Mac when you shop for your next computer.
You see many PC hardware users dont have to shop for a new computer because upgrading the old one is possible. OS X is only "secure" until people start targetting it.
Here's why the Mac is so much less susceptible to viruses:
First, the Mac OS X operating system is built on Unix, an industrial-strength operating system used in business, science and education. And OS X doesn't enable users -- or hackers who hijack user accounts -- to alter certain core files and features of its Unix underpinnings. By contrast, Windows XP users are given "full administrator" privileges that viruses and hackers can usurp to do damage.
Log into a Mac as Root (with the chosen admin password as default) and you can modify anything you damn well please. Not making the root account obvious to users does nothing to stop a hacker with a buffer overflow exploit such as the recent BSD (which OS X is based on) SSH vulnerability for example.
Also, Apple ships every Mac with all the communications "ports," or conduits that listen for commands over networks, closed. On Windows, some of these ports are left open.
OMFG a port is open!!! Quick quick tell every web server admin they have port 80 open! They obviously are going to be hacked... because a PORT IS OPEN!!! Get a grip.
In addition, Macs constitute such a tiny share of the world's computers t
This is great! Pretty soon I can go through life without owning everything, and everything I use will essentially be rented. I will be relieved of the material need to own things. "Imagine a world with no posessions."
Hey don't knock it - Buddhists have been doing this for centuries.
..and me. Download and install on WinXP. Point it at my sizable MP3 collection on one of my servers and.. it locks up. Force quit - try again. It locks up.
If you want the ultimate in genre music, try Moodlogic:
MoodLogic Mixes change the way you think about your MP3 collection, whether it is on your computer or on your MP3 Player device. Over the last three years, tens of thousands have contributed to MoodLogic more than a billion survey answers on how they feel about music. MoodLogic has assembled these answers and created the world's largest music database. After years of research and development creating complex computer algorithms to clean up the user-contributed data MoodLogic built an industrial-strength infrastructure to serve it back to you. Now you can experience your music in ways you never thought was possible*. Automatic music organization, intuitive MP3 mix generation, and robust ID3 tag cleanup are just a few of the highlights of MoodLogic.
Moodlogic is superb - it drives my home music collection. I ask my server to play slow electronica between the years 84 and 92 and it just does it.
Live searches? In WinAmp just press the "J" key and start typing.
By releasing iTunes for Windows, Apple have just increased their customer base for iTunes by approximately 100 MILLION (country specific licensing aside).
I think they stand to do very nicely out of this. Good luck to them.
"After your registration is complete, you will receive an email which contains the download location (URL) of the full Neocron client. If you don't want to download the client (a 1.3 GB download) from that page, then you may prefer ordering Neocron on 2 CD-ROMs for only 9.99 USD. You may also simply copy the full game from a friend."
From your post, I wouldn't recommend Exchange as if you are only going to be using it for mail routing, you are basically going to paying a LOT of money for something loaded with features that you will literally never use when you could have the same functionality for free with sendmail or Exim.
As I read your post, you dont want mailboxes or calendaring but simply mail routing.
You would probably be better building a big OpenBSD box and spending some time with Exim, or sendmail if you are happy with that.
Exchange 2003 uses the Windows 2000 SMTP service for mail routing anyway so really you dont need Exchange 2003, just a copy of Windows 2000 server or server 2003.
Exchange 2003 does mailboxes and calendaring - it's a good product and does this very well but you only seem to need mail routing.
OS X plays great in an LDAP directory environment. If you're using Active Directory, OS X can still be made to work -- but as with any non-Microsoft OS trying to use a proprietary Microsoft "standard," it's going to be awkward.
OBJECTION - Apple describe this process as "seamless" - are you DARING to disagree?
Easy: you yourself point out that 1100 * 15.7 = 17.27... not 17.6.
Since the call for papers for the new Top 500 list was Oct 1, and the BBC show aired on Oct 9 with a companion BBC News story [bbc.co.uk] dated Oct 12, you'd hope that VT was simply regurgitating the figure that has already been sent to the Top 500 organization.
Um.. that's not an explanation.
Bravo, +1 "I have nothing useful to say but I must say something".
Slashdot Mirror
We got caught out by Welchia by someone kindly connecting an infected laptop directly into the network behind the firewalling. Ironically this was possible due to a mistake in SMS package deployment (was done hastily - my fault).
My solution was to deploy honeypot windows machines running snort which reported into a central SQL server database.
Using Windows scripting host, I then wrote a script that ran periodically on a network management workstation which queried the database, creamed off the last machine that was an infector and using the wonderful free PS Tools from Sysinternals automatically determined what OS the machine was running (PSInfo), updated its antivirus signatures (PSExec), de-wormed the machine using the Symantec "FixWelch" utility (again using PSExec), decided if the machine was up to service pack spec (data from PSInfo) and if not service packed it (PSExec) then applyed the patches to prevent re-infection (PSExec).
All worked a treat.
I'm kind of glad we got hit because as a result I can now insist machines get patched (previously people would complain about a "box on the screen" (SMS installer)) while also being able to remove machine admin rights across the board and ban any machines that are not ours from being connected on pain of a disciplinary offence.
A lot of work but ultimately, I WIN. MOO HAR HAR!!
I had heard that statistic also. The more accurate figure is 1% to 3% gay, depending on social acceptance.
Not that I'm suggesting anything here but isnt that awfully similar to the number of Mac users...? (3.5%)
Is there *nix spyware?
Why not?
What would be the point? Do you think there is any money to be made by knowing what thousands of geeks who know better than to click on popup ads are doing on the net?
Perhaps the conductivity could be used somehow to keep the ink dark?
Would be cool if they glowed in the dark too ]:>)
Could the same be done with Tatoos using conductive ink?
Could perhaps make an interesting component of a digital ID scheme. Of course one would need one on the forhead and one on the right hand.
13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Revelations...
Notice mark "in" forehead or hand - most likely a reference to RFID chips. Woooo!
I won't try and defend this article because basically your analysis regarding the patches is correct, however it should be noted that Apple Security patches are delivered to you via Software Update, and installed with the click of a button. Does Windows do this? Hell to be honest I don't know, but it seems to me that if it DID do this, wouldn't most people have installed the security patches Microsoft releases and thereby reducing the effectiveness of the virii or security breaches in question?
Microsoft has Windows Update (Which unless I'm mistaken, they came up with before Apple). Unfortuantely automatic updating is turned off by default however, whereas Apple have this functionality turned on by default (which was a very good move). Microsoft are changing this behaviour as basically as Apple obviously understand, unless you have things happen for people automatically and bug them about it constantly, they simply will not do it.
I'm also forced to question your reasoning with regard to the recommendation to use an anti-virus program being strange. With OS X, as I hope you too can attest, data loss isn't a big problem, but that doesn't mean I still don't back up regularly. It's a matter of prudence, I pray that I don't lose data, but I expect that I will. I pray that my Mac won't get a virus, but I expect that eventually it will. For you to say it seems stranges strikes me as a little odd, especially since you administer such a large network. Redundancy is what it's all about in the computer biz, because the "better safe than sorry" attitude saves money in the long run.
I agree totally - antivirus is a very good idea, yet - there are no OSX viruses - if there are no viruses, then how does the antivirus even work?? what sort of signature library does it have? That's the strange part!
I started a point-by-point refutation of everything that you said, but then I realized that it would be pointless because you are just spreading FUD.
...and how you claim that the author's statement that there are no Mac viruses in part because there aren't enough Macs is wrong, because there would be viruses if there were more Macs).
Actually I'm debunking FUD but lets carry on.
Most of it doesn't even make sense, as when you claim that hardware for Linux is free ("typical computing tasks? Linux can do all that too - for free"),
I didn't say hardware for Linux is free - that would be extremely silly now wouldn't it? There are certain things I think that we can take for granted, such as I'm 96.5% certain that readers here understand what Linux is and that computer hardware is not "free". Fair comment one must always take the cost of the hardware into account but its the OS that we are talking about here.
I said people attack the most prevailant system, which is presently Windows. If OS X was as prevailant as Windows is now, there would be more attacks targetted at it. the amount of attacks scales with popularity.
I don't believe you actually own a Mac, because you are about as hostile toward Macs as some of the most rabid Windows fanboys I've run into. If you do actually own an iBook, here's my suggestion: sell it. We don't need people like you spreading this sort of FUD.
Well I certainly do own an iBook and how you can call me hostile towards Macs I find quite frankly confusing (did you READ what I wrote? I like OSX). I like OS X a lot - (I certainly wouldn't have bought an iBook if I didn't, and I definitely would not be thinking about a G5) plus I do support (amongst other things) a 200 host Mac network complete with XServe (which I personally recommended & installed).
The article I debunked is FUD - it makes contradictory points. For example, this paragraph:
So, if you're a Windows user, you could sit tight, apply all the patches, worry about all the viruses and hope that the spring's Service Pack will solve most of the security problems without breaking other key features of Windows or interfering with programs you use.
This is clearly putting the concept of patches in a negative light, and inserting FUD into the process by implying that applying a patch may cause problems. Some facts:
OS X needs patching, (as do all other current operating systems.)
Applying patches can be risky, however its important to keep up to date. Apple suffered from this exact issue recently with the 10.2.8 update causing problems for many users.
So Apple are "guilty" of two of the alleged "crimes" of Windows.
It would be like an airline saying something like "So if you fly with our competitors, sit tight and hope there are no bombs or terrorists on the plane with you" while trying to sell plane tickets. It's ridiculous.
It says that Microsoft release patches and puts that in a negative light and later on says that Apple release patches but it's "ok" because they are less frequent!
It also says (correctly, unless the "switchback" "virus" isnt a hoax) that there are no viruses for OSX, yet you should still run antivirus. Sophos, Symantec and Network Associates all produce OS X antivirus, which you have to admit is a little strange. I suppose they are selling insurance against future incidents.
If I've posted anything factually incorrect, then please set the record straight.
What is it with all the anonymous postings anyway? Why are people afraid to put their names to their opinions?
Windows is riddled with security flaws, and new ones turn up regularly. It is increasingly susceptible to all kinds of viruses, malicious Trojan horse programs and spyware. As a result, Windows users have been forced to spend more of their time and money supporting their computers.
..and this is different to Apple Software Update how exactly? Yes people target Windows but that is simply because it is so widespread. Windows / OS X / Linux all require regular patches. This is not a practice limited to Microsoft.
ANY computer is susceptible to a virus written for it. Money? The last time I checked security patches were free.
Almost every week, they are supposed to install patches to the already patchy operating system to plug these security holes. And every few months, it seems, Windows users must quake in fear as some horrible new virus is created by the international criminal class that constantly targets Windows.
But for consumers and small businesses, there's a simple way out of this endless morass: Buy an Apple Macintosh computer. There are no viruses on the Macintosh's excellent two-year-old operating system, called OS X. And the Mac is a terrific computer -- as good as, or better than, Windows for the typical computing tasks important to mainstream users.
No viruses.. Yet. And typical computing tasks? Linux can do all that too - for free.
It isn't impossible to write a virus for the Mac. The system isn't impenetrable. Mac users should still use antivirus software. But any virus or security problem that does emerge on the Mac is likely to be much less serious than the Windows security crisis. "Mac OS X hasn't had any viruses since the OS was launched," says Bill Rosenkrantz, the head of Macintosh products at Symantec, the big antivirus firm. "It's more difficult to attack the Apple system than Windows."
So, first we have how there are no viruses for OSX yet we should still run anti-virus? So what sort of signature library is this antivirus system going to have if there are no viruses?
So, if you're a Windows user, you could sit tight, apply all the patches, worry about all the viruses and hope that the spring's Service Pack will solve most of the security problems without breaking other key features of Windows or interfering with programs you use.
Er.. you mean like that OSX 10.2.8 update completely breaking many people's OS X install? Like that you mean?
Or, if the security issues are important to you, you could just buy a Mac when you shop for your next computer.
You see many PC hardware users dont have to shop for a new computer because upgrading the old one is possible. OS X is only "secure" until people start targetting it.
Here's why the Mac is so much less susceptible to viruses:
First, the Mac OS X operating system is built on Unix, an industrial-strength operating system used in business, science and education. And OS X doesn't enable users -- or hackers who hijack user accounts -- to alter certain core files and features of its Unix underpinnings. By contrast, Windows XP users are given "full administrator" privileges that viruses and hackers can usurp to do damage.
Log into a Mac as Root (with the chosen admin password as default) and you can modify anything you damn well please. Not making the root account obvious to users does nothing to stop a hacker with a buffer overflow exploit such as the recent BSD (which OS X is based on) SSH vulnerability for example.
Also, Apple ships every Mac with all the communications "ports," or conduits that listen for commands over networks, closed. On Windows, some of these ports are left open.
OMFG a port is open!!! Quick quick tell every web server admin they have port 80 open! They obviously are going to be hacked... because a PORT IS OPEN!!! Get a grip.
In addition, Macs constitute such a tiny share of the world's computers that t
what makes open MMORPG's interesting is the fact that emergent behaviour and gameplay will always be unpredictable.
I'm sure that many developers have designed an MMORPG only to discover after a while that players do things they never ever intended.
A successful developer will observe this behaviour and work with it rather than against it.
Ultimately it's the players that pay developer's wages - keeping them interested and happy is what it's all about. Preventing PvP play for example will cause many people who enjoy that sort of play to leave. From what I see many MMORPG developers try to keep people happy by having "no PvP" zones. The developers of Neocron have implemented this, however they received that many requests for no "safe" areas that they provide an entirely seperate server where there are no safe areas.
This is a technique I described at DNSCON last year.
I go one further though - once you start to get spam to an address that you registered with a specific company (say ticketmaster@mydomain.com for example) then reroute all mail to that address to the relevant abuse reporting addresses.
The result? By spamming you they automatically report themselves while you never see the spam.
Simply show them a lowish spec machine setup the way you would configure it and let them play with it for a bit. Explain the lack of cost - this normally gets people's attention.
Hands up who hasn't already built one of these...
.. used.
OMG it's like... we geeks build these things because it just obvious and has to be done and like these big corporations package it for the masses.
I feel so
Ahh but perhaps it's part of the license agreement for the robes that they are not allowed to mention that they are under license.
Sort of a Digital Monk Copyright Act or Non-Disrobing Agreement.
How do you know? Ever ASKED one? Arhar!
Windows is riddled with security flaws, and new ones turn up regularly. It is increasingly susceptible to all kinds of viruses, malicious Trojan horse programs and spyware. As a result, Windows users have been forced to spend more of their time and money supporting their computers.
..and this is different to Apple Software Update how exactly? Yes people target Windows but that is simply because it is so widespread. Windows / OS X / Linux all require regular patches. This is not a practice limited to Microsoft.
ANY computer is susceptible to a virus written for it. Money? The last time I checked security patches were free.
Almost every week, they are supposed to install patches to the already patchy operating system to plug these security holes. And every few months, it seems, Windows users must quake in fear as some horrible new virus is created by the international criminal class that constantly targets Windows.
But for consumers and small businesses, there's a simple way out of this endless morass: Buy an Apple Macintosh computer. There are no viruses on the Macintosh's excellent two-year-old operating system, called OS X. And the Mac is a terrific computer -- as good as, or better than, Windows for the typical computing tasks important to mainstream users.
No viruses.. Yet. And typical computing tasks? Linux can do all that too - for free.
It isn't impossible to write a virus for the Mac. The system isn't impenetrable. Mac users should still use antivirus software. But any virus or security problem that does emerge on the Mac is likely to be much less serious than the Windows security crisis. "Mac OS X hasn't had any viruses since the OS was launched," says Bill Rosenkrantz, the head of Macintosh products at Symantec, the big antivirus firm. "It's more difficult to attack the Apple system than Windows."
So, first we have how there are no viruses for OSX yet we should still run anti-virus? So what sort of signature library is this antivirus system going to have if there are no viruses?
So, if you're a Windows user, you could sit tight, apply all the patches, worry about all the viruses and hope that the spring's Service Pack will solve most of the security problems without breaking other key features of Windows or interfering with programs you use.
Er.. you mean like that OSX 10.2.8 update completely breaking many people's OS X install? Like that you mean?
Or, if the security issues are important to you, you could just buy a Mac when you shop for your next computer.
You see many PC hardware users dont have to shop for a new computer because upgrading the old one is possible. OS X is only "secure" until people start targetting it.
Here's why the Mac is so much less susceptible to viruses:
First, the Mac OS X operating system is built on Unix, an industrial-strength operating system used in business, science and education. And OS X doesn't enable users -- or hackers who hijack user accounts -- to alter certain core files and features of its Unix underpinnings. By contrast, Windows XP users are given "full administrator" privileges that viruses and hackers can usurp to do damage.
Log into a Mac as Root (with the chosen admin password as default) and you can modify anything you damn well please. Not making the root account obvious to users does nothing to stop a hacker with a buffer overflow exploit such as the recent BSD (which OS X is based on) SSH vulnerability for example.
Also, Apple ships every Mac with all the communications "ports," or conduits that listen for commands over networks, closed. On Windows, some of these ports are left open.
OMFG a port is open!!! Quick quick tell every web server admin they have port 80 open! They obviously are going to be hacked... because a PORT IS OPEN!!! Get a grip.
In addition, Macs constitute such a tiny share of the world's computers t
This is great! Pretty soon I can go through life without owning everything, and everything I use will essentially be rented. I will be relieved of the material need to own things. "Imagine a world with no posessions."
Hey don't knock it - Buddhists have been doing this for centuries.
..and me. Download and install on WinXP. Point it at my sizable MP3 collection on one of my servers and .. it locks up. Force quit - try again. It locks up.
Kind of makes me feel like this guy.
Smart playlists? Try The Brain also available as a Winamp Plugin
If you want the ultimate in genre music, try Moodlogic:
MoodLogic Mixes change the way you think about your MP3 collection, whether it is on your computer or on your MP3 Player device. Over the last three years, tens of thousands have contributed to MoodLogic more than a billion survey answers on how they feel about music. MoodLogic has assembled these answers and created the world's largest music database. After years of research and development creating complex computer algorithms to clean up the user-contributed data MoodLogic built an industrial-strength infrastructure to serve it back to you. Now you can experience your music in ways you never thought was possible*. Automatic music organization, intuitive MP3 mix generation, and robust ID3 tag cleanup are just a few of the highlights of MoodLogic.
Moodlogic is superb - it drives my home music collection. I ask my server to play slow electronica between the years 84 and 92 and it just does it.
Live searches? In WinAmp just press the "J" key and start typing.
By releasing iTunes for Windows, Apple have just increased their customer base for iTunes by approximately 100 MILLION (country specific licensing aside).
I think they stand to do very nicely out of this. Good luck to them.
burn the CD once and then just copy that CD instead of burning the files again. Unlimited copies!
Shhh you fool! Don't tell the moro.. er.. RIAA things like that - they will start asking questions!
Um, yeah, this coming from the company that's offering exactly *how* many music downloads?
Um, over 200,000 actually.
Disappointing that Neocron isn't mentioned.
Get a free 10 day trial here
"After your registration is complete, you will receive an email which contains the download location (URL) of the full Neocron client. If you don't want to download the client (a 1.3 GB download) from that page, then you may prefer ordering Neocron on 2 CD-ROMs for only 9.99 USD. You may also simply copy the full game from a friend."
From your post, I wouldn't recommend Exchange as if you are only going to be using it for mail routing, you are basically going to paying a LOT of money for something loaded with features that you will literally never use when you could have the same functionality for free with sendmail or Exim.
As I read your post, you dont want mailboxes or calendaring but simply mail routing.
You would probably be better building a big OpenBSD box and spending some time with Exim, or sendmail if you are happy with that.
Exchange 2003 uses the Windows 2000 SMTP service for mail routing anyway so really you dont need Exchange 2003, just a copy of Windows 2000 server or server 2003.
Exchange 2003 does mailboxes and calendaring - it's a good product and does this very well but you only seem to need mail routing.
OS X plays great in an LDAP directory environment. If you're using Active Directory, OS X can still be made to work -- but as with any non-Microsoft OS trying to use a proprietary Microsoft "standard," it's going to be awkward.
OBJECTION - Apple describe this process as "seamless" - are you DARING to disagree?
Easy: you yourself point out that 1100 * 15.7 = 17.27 ... not 17.6.
Since the call for papers for the new Top 500 list was Oct 1, and the BBC show aired on Oct 9 with a companion BBC News story [bbc.co.uk] dated Oct 12, you'd hope that VT was simply regurgitating the figure that has already been sent to the Top 500 organization.
Um.. that's not an explanation.
Bravo, +1 "I have nothing useful to say but I must say something".