Unfortunately, I hate to agree with you, but it's true. If they project renames and then it continues, it might get picked up again.
The other concern is going to be about support, if Hans is found guilty or not, it doesn't really matter. A company such as Novell may consider that the filesystem platform isn't as supported as what it once was and is moving away from it.
From a marketing point of view, Novell won't want to associated with it either. If they show support for him, and he is found guilty, it's a marketing nightmare for Novell.
I think you are missing the point. Assigning out IPs isn't the issue; it's assigning them out, and then allowing BitTorrent to hammer their internet link pipes, also with potentially more activity going on through BitTorrent you are becoming a larger target for the **AA to aim for.
Public IPs aren't the problem in and of themselves, the poster has said though that they are limiting the people who they connect through by using NAT. Public IP addresses get rid of this obstacle.
I understand that it's their only option in some instances. At that point the uni should be running it as an ISP then, give each of them a public IP and then run it as seperate infrastructure, on a seperate business model. At that point they should also include a set of terms and conditions that specifically point out that they are not in any way responsible for anything that they do. If people complain that it's slow, then there may not be much more of an option aside to rate shape traffic.
Either way, (My semi-educated opinion) it's not an engineering problem, it's a managerial problem about how the whole lot is being run at the moment and it obviously needs a re-think on how things are being done.
1) Implement public IPs and face the consequences, namely either knock on issues of them hammering your internet pipe, or as you said the otherwise potential legal issues surrounding it. 2) There was an article a little while back on rate shaping
You do have to question why the network is really there. Maybe you just need to tell your boss to get a grip.
I hate to say it, but does bittorrent (For non-uni use) really fall into the "supported" category? I know it's going to be something that everyone is going to try to find a way around as most uni networks have pretty good internet connections, but on a large scale like this you have to get an official statement from your boss as to say whether it's supported or not.
If they are chest nuts, either it's WAY too cold where you are or your significant other just gave you a shot to the groin that would make a man a mile away cringe.
I recently had to do an implementation of Wildfire with Single Sign On, with a backend in Active Directory and Microsoft SQL server. This is with the Pandion client and pulling all the data from Active Directory and populating the client. Even if you think the documentation sucks, at least look at the links on the end if you want to know more information.
If I open my CV which was originally created in Word XP in OpenOffice, and then save it and then open it again in Word 2003, the bullets are screwed and the formatting runs all over the place.
If I create a new document in OpenOffice and put in bullets and then save it and open it in Word 2003, the bullets are screwed.
If I create a new document in Word 2003, put bullets in it and then save it and open it in OpenOffice the bullets are screwed.
This means that I am stuck modifying my CV and customer facing documents in MS Office on my laptop as I can't guarantee that things are going to come out the same on the other side.
Pin number entry at tables in restaurants instead of making the person move to a register. As people start using cards and PINs more, not having the wires around makes things a heck of a lot simpler, especially in busy environments.
I know what you are getting at, but consider it this way by paraphrasing your comment:
Why use a wireless remote control for your TV when a wired one works just as well and you don't need to change the batteries? Plus it means your dog can't run off with it.
Last weekend, I ran a cable. It was Cat 5e, I drilled two holes in the wall with a cordless drill and crimped the cable. Now, for someone else to do this, it might cost me 100 quid, BUT, the reason I ran the cable in the first place was because of speed. I had a 54 meg connection that would roughgly give me 10 meg, moving multiple gigabytes of data at a time was not only time consuming, it was a pain in the arse.
Sure, not everyone is doing that, especially not a normal home user who is just browsing the net, but *really* who wants to muck around with WEP vs WPA, shared keys and 101 other things, when a cable that someone else puts in so SOOOO much simpler.
The whole WEP/WPA, shared keys thing is enough to bring a normal user to tears just from mentioning it. A cable is something they can see and touch, that element of tangability (Is that a word?) is worth more than you care to imagine to a non-techie.
Your best bet if you want to not care if it's Exchange or anything else, go for a gateway product.
1) If you want to house on site, then use this: Trend Micro InterScan Messaging Security Suite It runs on windows, and has a really good hit rate for SPAM and it's even better with viruses.
The IMSS solution I am not going to turn around to you and say that it's the absolute best thing on the face of the planet, as quite simply I just haven't seen something out there yet, that really makes me go WOW! It is however, a really good gateway product, and works extremely well, if nothing else, it's the pick of a bad bunch. It's very configurable, and in from my experiences with it, tends not to screw up. That's a pretty important factor for me.
The MessageLabs solution is another gateway solution. It's not housed by you, so it takes up no server resources on your part, and the solution is extremely redundant. Certainly a hell of a lot more than you are going to get paying for it yourself in most instances. Their virus and spam definitions are essentially second to none, and the rates of false positives I have seen for spam are very good as well. Their interface on their web site isn't exactly feature rich, in actual fact it really is quite sparse, but then it does cover the basics, and their retention times for bad mails are good too.
So for gateway products, these are what I am recommending to customers at the moment. I am tending to not push for server based (Exchange server / Information Store) AV as hardware is cheap and if it's not on there it can't cause you any problems. All this tied in with the fact that it doesn't scale leads me to think that it's not worth it. The other suggestion would be to run Exchange on port 26 and have this on port 25. That way it can be on the same box, but it shouldn't interfere with Exchange at all.
I have no idea what your discount schedule is for resellers, so I can't even get you indicitive pricing. I also don't know where you are, so that helps me even less.
No, not completely. ViiV was also about creating hardware that was media adapters so that the media was streamed over wireless without having to have the PC and associated noise at the front of the room. It would mean using your existing system (With a dual core CPU) for the back end and that would do all the intensive work.
Unfortunately Intel also said that Microsoft Media Centre 05 was also the OS platform, and that DRM was a requirement for it. There wasn't a Linux option. There wasn't any other option, and sure that sucks, but DRM wasn't all ViiV was about.
Umm Oracle Financials, the complete design and implementation, full Java front end, a complete dev environment... So they have an application dev environment, and all the applications they put out, now including PeopleSoft.
Oracle supports Novell / Suse, Asianux and RHES as it stands now. As well as doing code contributions back to the kernel. Admittedly this is predominantly to do with their clustered file system, and some of the memory allocation stuff, but still, it's better than some. They also run a number of their servers on Linux as well. They would have to have one of the biggest commercial Linux installations around at the moment.
So; they are doing application development on Linux, Linux kernel work, supporting the operating system through 3 or so distributions and a number of iterations thereof...
Really, why not just buy Novell / Suse and take their staff who can help to support it, and who are doing exactly that now?!?
Essentially the rumour is that Microsoft pushed the working demo of published apps (Or Bear Paw) from Windows 2003 R2 to Longhorn Server (essentially 2007) because Citrix agreed that they wouldn't make Metaframe for Linux.
Umm, How will this affect corporate versions? Will the release of Vista require your computer to talk to another computer on your corporate network which then talks back to Microsoft to ensure that your copy is legitimate?
If Microsoft starts demanding activation from corporate customers, I think things will get interesting and amusing all at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, I hate to agree with you, but it's true. If they project renames and then it continues, it might get picked up again.
The other concern is going to be about support, if Hans is found guilty or not, it doesn't really matter. A company such as Novell may consider that the filesystem platform isn't as supported as what it once was and is moving away from it.
From a marketing point of view, Novell won't want to associated with it either. If they show support for him, and he is found guilty, it's a marketing nightmare for Novell.
I'm looking forward to Firefox 3.0. I hear it washes your dishes and matches your socks.
I do believe it's time to stop looking for a girlfriend.
Holy shit!
If only SCO had their hands on this, they could have saved themselves a butt load of cash when they found out earlier that their case was a sham!
Yep, they will be on the other end of the phone, granted, but do you have a technical answer for this poster?
Can you tell him how to get around this issue?
I think you are missing the point. Assigning out IPs isn't the issue; it's assigning them out, and then allowing BitTorrent to hammer their internet link pipes, also with potentially more activity going on through BitTorrent you are becoming a larger target for the **AA to aim for.
Public IPs aren't the problem in and of themselves, the poster has said though that they are limiting the people who they connect through by using NAT. Public IP addresses get rid of this obstacle.
Yes, yes it is. Did someone misunderstand what I was saying though? I doubt it. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
I understand that it's their only option in some instances. At that point the uni should be running it as an ISP then, give each of them a public IP and then run it as seperate infrastructure, on a seperate business model. At that point they should also include a set of terms and conditions that specifically point out that they are not in any way responsible for anything that they do. If people complain that it's slow, then there may not be much more of an option aside to rate shape traffic.
Either way, (My semi-educated opinion) it's not an engineering problem, it's a managerial problem about how the whole lot is being run at the moment and it obviously needs a re-think on how things are being done.
1) Implement public IPs and face the consequences, namely either knock on issues of them hammering your internet pipe, or as you said the otherwise potential legal issues surrounding it.
2) There was an article a little while back on rate shaping
You do have to question why the network is really there. Maybe you just need to tell your boss to get a grip.
I hate to say it, but does bittorrent (For non-uni use) really fall into the "supported" category? I know it's going to be something that everyone is going to try to find a way around as most uni networks have pretty good internet connections, but on a large scale like this you have to get an official statement from your boss as to say whether it's supported or not.
Sorry I can't give you better news.
I think you mean "M. Night Shyamalan"
I would have voted for Bulldog, I have been with them for a while, unfortunately, they aren't taking new customers.
Be broadband would have to be my other choice though. A guy who works with me does some stupid stuff with his line and doesn't have any problems.
Berny
If they are chest nuts, either it's WAY too cold where you are or your significant other just gave you a shot to the groin that would make a man a mile away cringe.
Been there, done that...
Wrote some documentation:
Wildfire server with SSO and MS SQL
I recently had to do an implementation of Wildfire with Single Sign On, with a backend in Active Directory and Microsoft SQL server. This is with the Pandion client and pulling all the data from Active Directory and populating the client. Even if you think the documentation sucks, at least look at the links on the end if you want to know more information.
Did a subscriber get a look at the page?
Unfortunately between myself and my clients there is usually a fair bit of modiification between us.
Most of my users don't have the ability to modify pdf documents.
If I open my CV which was originally created in Word XP in OpenOffice, and then save it and then open it again in Word 2003, the bullets are screwed and the formatting runs all over the place.
If I create a new document in OpenOffice and put in bullets and then save it and open it in Word 2003, the bullets are screwed.
If I create a new document in Word 2003, put bullets in it and then save it and open it in OpenOffice the bullets are screwed.
This means that I am stuck modifying my CV and customer facing documents in MS Office on my laptop as I can't guarantee that things are going to come out the same on the other side.
Pin number entry at tables in restaurants instead of making the person move to a register. As people start using cards and PINs more, not having the wires around makes things a heck of a lot simpler, especially in busy environments.
I know what you are getting at, but consider it this way by paraphrasing your comment:
Why use a wireless remote control for your TV when a wired one works just as well and you don't need to change the batteries? Plus it means your dog can't run off with it.
Last weekend, I ran a cable. It was Cat 5e, I drilled two holes in the wall with a cordless drill and crimped the cable. Now, for someone else to do this, it might cost me 100 quid, BUT, the reason I ran the cable in the first place was because of speed. I had a 54 meg connection that would roughgly give me 10 meg, moving multiple gigabytes of data at a time was not only time consuming, it was a pain in the arse.
Sure, not everyone is doing that, especially not a normal home user who is just browsing the net, but *really* who wants to muck around with WEP vs WPA, shared keys and 101 other things, when a cable that someone else puts in so SOOOO much simpler.
The whole WEP/WPA, shared keys thing is enough to bring a normal user to tears just from mentioning it. A cable is something they can see and touch, that element of tangability (Is that a word?) is worth more than you care to imagine to a non-techie.
Your best bet if you want to not care if it's Exchange or anything else, go for a gateway product.
1) If you want to house on site, then use this: Trend Micro InterScan Messaging Security Suite It runs on windows, and has a really good hit rate for SPAM and it's even better with viruses.
2) If you don't mind getting someone else to do it for you: MessageLabs Spam and Virus filtering
The IMSS solution I am not going to turn around to you and say that it's the absolute best thing on the face of the planet, as quite simply I just haven't seen something out there yet, that really makes me go WOW! It is however, a really good gateway product, and works extremely well, if nothing else, it's the pick of a bad bunch. It's very configurable, and in from my experiences with it, tends not to screw up. That's a pretty important factor for me.
The MessageLabs solution is another gateway solution. It's not housed by you, so it takes up no server resources on your part, and the solution is extremely redundant. Certainly a hell of a lot more than you are going to get paying for it yourself in most instances. Their virus and spam definitions are essentially second to none, and the rates of false positives I have seen for spam are very good as well. Their interface on their web site isn't exactly feature rich, in actual fact it really is quite sparse, but then it does cover the basics, and their retention times for bad mails are good too.
So for gateway products, these are what I am recommending to customers at the moment. I am tending to not push for server based (Exchange server / Information Store) AV as hardware is cheap and if it's not on there it can't cause you any problems. All this tied in with the fact that it doesn't scale leads me to think that it's not worth it. The other suggestion would be to run Exchange on port 26 and have this on port 25. That way it can be on the same box, but it shouldn't interfere with Exchange at all.
I have no idea what your discount schedule is for resellers, so I can't even get you indicitive pricing. I also don't know where you are, so that helps me even less.
Happy hunting!
Berny
"Stop talking! Get to work!" counts I guess
Aside from tasting things, there is only one other good use for my tongue, and my girlfriend agrees.
*shakes head*
No, not completely. ViiV was also about creating hardware that was media adapters so that the media was streamed over wireless without having to have the PC and associated noise at the front of the room. It would mean using your existing system (With a dual core CPU) for the back end and that would do all the intensive work.
Unfortunately Intel also said that Microsoft Media Centre 05 was also the OS platform, and that DRM was a requirement for it. There wasn't a Linux option. There wasn't any other option, and sure that sucks, but DRM wasn't all ViiV was about.
Umm Oracle Financials, the complete design and implementation, full Java front end, a complete dev environment... So they have an application dev environment, and all the applications they put out, now including PeopleSoft.
Oracle supports Novell / Suse, Asianux and RHES as it stands now. As well as doing code contributions back to the kernel. Admittedly this is predominantly to do with their clustered file system, and some of the memory allocation stuff, but still, it's better than some. They also run a number of their servers on Linux as well. They would have to have one of the biggest commercial Linux installations around at the moment.
So; they are doing application development on Linux, Linux kernel work, supporting the operating system through 3 or so distributions and a number of iterations thereof...
Really, why not just buy Novell / Suse and take their staff who can help to support it, and who are doing exactly that now?!?
try dropping me an email with a few more details, I will tell you what I can.
I think I heard something at one time about the next version of TS having some time of App level publishing built it, but I can't truly recall.
It's a really popular rumour actually, one that probably has some truth to it..
Essentially the rumour is that Microsoft pushed the working demo of published apps (Or Bear Paw) from Windows 2003 R2 to Longhorn Server (essentially 2007) because Citrix agreed that they wouldn't make Metaframe for Linux.
Umm, How will this affect corporate versions? Will the release of Vista require your computer to talk to another computer on your corporate network which then talks back to Microsoft to ensure that your copy is legitimate?
If Microsoft starts demanding activation from corporate customers, I think things will get interesting and amusing all at the same time.