All these jokes have already been done (and far funnier) by "The Onion"
http://www.theonion.com/3941/
Voice Recognition Software Yelled At
NEW YORK--Fidelity Financial Services' Gwen Watson, 33, shouted angrily at her IBM ViaVoice Pro USB voice-recognition software, sources close to the human-resources administrator reported Monday. "No, not Gary Friedman! Barry Friedman, you stupid computer. BARRY!" Watson was heard to scream from her cubicle. "Jesus Christ, I could've typed it in a hundredth of the time." After another minute of yelling, Watson was further incensed upon looking at her screen, which read, "Barely Freedman you God ram plucking pizza ship."
It seems perfectly obvious (to me, anyway) that eventually we will reach a point where all this will have to be done by machines; in that light, this is a step in the right direction.
When you have hackers using automated systems, remote controlled computers, etc, to do their hacking for them, we will eventually reach a point where we, too, will need to use automation to fight them.
This is the exact same pattern you see in every other area where automation is now being used: nuclear power, jet aircraft, etc. Of course, just as with those fields, people should still be required to know how to do the job manually, but the automation will be an eventual happening in networking. Im surprised its taking as long as it has.
Part of the beauty of the Libretto was its smallness. It really could fit in your pocket (assuming a slightly oversized pocket).
The vaio's are nice and small as far as a sub-laptop goes, but the libretto was about as big as my hand. If you needed to use a floppy or cd-rom, you needed to connect it externally via a PCMCIA card. Inconvenient if its your regular computer, but as a utility computer it was phenomenal.
The only bad thing was you needed to use the PCMCIA slot for a network connection (it wasnt integrated in the first models), but it was ok for us as we had a mixed token ring/ethernet environment. Also, it only had one PCMCIA slot, making the additional port replicator, which added another one, a must-have.
Jeez, this is incredible. A linux project getting factionalized and splintering apart (and possibly even fading from relevance). We've never seen that before.
no.. The reason the push developers away is that many of these guys are trying to bloat xfree to hell.. if they didn't it would be 20x worse than windows..
Probably not. Small, custom devices like this usually dont have a lot of options as far as driver support goes.
I was a huge fan of the Toshiba Libretto, way back in the day, so its nice to see somebody else pick up the mini-PC torch. Those things were an admin's dream; imagine having all your software installed on an easily portable system which can fit in your pocket; and this was in 1996!
That one was really hard to get drivers for as well, as I recall; its hard to remember, but it may not have supported Windows 98 too well.
On the other hand, we recently discovered that our Exchange backend is configured to automatically delete certain attachments. We couldn't send an Access.mdb file via email -- even between corporate accounts.
You may already have found this out, but the exchange admin can even configure that behavior to stop (if they want). We generally leave it on to encourage people to use file compression; all our computers have winzip installed.
Actually, I understand what Gates was saying with his Outlook comment. As an piece of software, you can do a real lot of things with Exchange/Outlook, much more than just email. The pity is that most people never use those things, because using Exchange for just email is like using a sledgehammer to drive in nails.
I call BS -- I use Outlook Web Access with Firebird from home with absolutely no problems. It works differently than it does if you use IE, but it still works.
Misinformation is rampant around here regarding MS. Its a shame when technical people lie; being objective is *supposed* to be our virtue, but is rarely the case.
Perhaps Microsoft should put some effort into making an Online Help or "Intro to Windows" that's interesting enough to make the average user sit through it once
Nice in theory, but your average user doesnt use the help files that are there already, nor do they even want to give the slightest effort to understand what their computer is doing.
There is a reason help desks everywhere refer to them as "LUsers"
Ya, they dont do something so informal and slow like using a newsgroup or mailing list. Its actually impressive; I never got the impression they were all doing volunteer work.
I'm curious - how is it that you know our needs at this school so well? You obviously must understand the complexity of our group connection schedules since you are able to so easily dismiss everything I've done here.
So you dont need your proxy server to not display a login validation? I thought that was your original beef, to which I replied that it was set up wrong.
I was under the impression that having things work properly was a universal need.
Just because something doesn't work doesn't mean it's my fault.
I dont know who's fault it is, nor do I care. I just said the thing was set up by a retard; who that retard was is irrelevant (to me, anyway). You just said it was MS's fault it wasnt working well, which it isnt.
Not to mention, it's entirely feasible that MS would purposely cripple a product for a revenue stream.
Oh my God, its a conspiracy!
Care to direct me to XP Education?
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/
Go to "troubleshooting and support". There have everything you could ever ask for.
You could also get off your lazy, excuse making ass and buy a book on supporting Windows XP. Try Amazon.com
They throw us in with every other multibillion dollar corporation by forcing us to use MS Pro for simple domain-based authentication in a 100 user network. What the hell do my girls need with VPNs or remote terminal access (much touted features of XP Pro)? They don't, but they're going to pay for it just the same - just to get the domain access.
Sounds to me like MS just has lots of features. Of course, you are completely ignoring the fact that MS has Small Business Server. I had always thought more options were a good thing, not a bad one. If they charged more for the other stuff, than you would be whining that they make small businesses pay through the nose for things like VPN, etc. You are just a habitual complainer. Slashdot is a good fit for you!
Again, and I will type really slowly so you can understand, YOU DONT NEED TO USE DOMAIN AUTHENTICATION. If it isnt a good fit for what you are trying to do, just disable it. IT IS YOUR FAULT FOR LEAVING IT ON. The problem is that, when I said you dont have to keep the proxy as a domain resource, you just dont understand what I mean by a domain resource.
You are supporting something you dont understand. That isnt MS's fault. It isnt a flaw, it isnt a conspiracy. It isnt even that they are trying to keep this information secret, its just that you are too lazy to educate yourself regarding how it works and how to use it. Perhaps you are just not a technical person; maybe you need to get someone with a technical inclination to do the computer support.
EVERY... SINGLE... VERSION of Windows since 95 and until XP has been able to authenticate to a Windows-based domain until XP Home.
And home users where whining about needing all that networking stuff in their OS. "Why should we pay extra for stuff we arent going to use? Boo hoo hoo." Just like you. You complain when they leave stuff in, you complain when they leave stuff out. There is just no pleasing the morons.
Remember - things were working just fine no matter what the students brought with them. That lasted for about 6 months until XP Home arrived with no domain authentication.
SO TURN OFF DOMAIN AUTHENTICATION. You know what the fucking problem is, so get off your ass, stop replying and making excuses, and go fix the damn thing!
1) I've only been using Linux for two years now. I've been an MCSE trainer for over six.
Obviously a paper one. I earned my MSCE in less than six months, with very little study. People like you just make the title worth less and less.
2) I'm not the one who spells his online name with a '0', 't0ny'.
Idiots like yourself like to mention that all the time. Maybe its because, hmm, "to
Well, its no mystery that Linux needs a real networking operating system if they want to compete with MS, and Novell needs a better operating system if they are going to compete with MS.
There is a reason builds leak out of Redmond- its because, when they are creating a new build, the development team is using it internally. So when you say they are making a version of Windows which isnt really working, you really dont know what you are talking about.
There was a series of articles linked here about six months ago which detailed the processes they use to create and test Windows. It was very impressive, and very professional. After seeing that, I have no doubts about the future of Windows being bright.
Feel free to mod me down for saying something all the MS-haters dont want to hear.
thats right. but mine is an educated opinion, while yours is based in ignorance.
People like you try and devalue the worth of an opinion by saying they all have equal value, but that simply isnt true. Like this: your opinion is that something is broken, because you cant get it to work right.
My opinion is that you cant get it to work right, because you are doing the wrong thing.
So, cleary, only one of us can be right, because the two opinions are mutually exclusive. And, since your opinion isnt solving the problem, its easy to prove whether Im right or not. If it can be set up to work properly, Im right. But if it cant, your position still isnt validated, because you can only prove a positive. Your opinion is a negative (it cant be done).
Its always funny how you lunix d00ds always say Windows is so easy, but you can never configure it properly.
Everything you've said so far boils down to this fact: WE DON'T AGREE. It's a matter of opinion. You may call it 'misconfiguration'. Excuse me, but HOW CAN YOU MISCONFIGURE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST (Domain authentication for XP Home)? I call it crippling a product. Difference of opinion.
The problem isnt that we dont agree, its that you cite something as being the problem which isnt really the problem. You shouldnt be having the proxy require domain authentication if it is causing you problems, its that simple.
XP Home doesnt log in to a domain because it is made for HOME users, who are not part of a domain. Its like bitching that screwdriver sucks at pounding in nails.
You can't 'misconfigure' something that doesn't exist, namely Domain authentication in XP Home, but I can damn sure try and work around MS's power play for more cash. That's all I'm trying to do. Mission accomplished, end of story.
Your network design is flawed. It has nothing to do with the client machines, XP Home, or Microsoft. RTFM, and disable domain authentication for the proxy.
Like I keep saying, the problem is having the proxy configured as a domain resource. I dont know how much plainer I can make it, aside from flying down there and holding your hand.
I wonder if the RIAA is going to parade all those guys who wrote popular songs in the 1950's that have sold hundreds of millions of copies over the past half century and received nothing by $100, a bucket of fried chicken, and a bus ticket home in compensation. Let them tell the young people about theft!
I thought it was $10, a bottle of booze, and a hooker.
The organization is MILKING. They care as much about the long term interests of the company as Enron did.
They are focused on making their service instrumental to their client's checking process; why else would they LIE about the capabilities of their service, and use insurance as some kind of quality assurance? Its perfectly obvious what they are doing.
My prediction: "Office Guy" goes into bosses office, tells them their product isnt as secure as they say it is. Presents ideas for improving product. Next week, "Office Guy" gets a surprise performance evalutaion, is found lacking, and is summarily dismissed. After company gets haxx0red, boss takes Office Guy's ideas, presents them as his own, and is eventaully promoted to Vice President.
Yes, you're 'better' than me. Again, you ask no questions whatever and assume you've got all the answers. Obviously, I don't NEED to use domain security because it's so easy to implement and I love it so much. I'm doing it because permissions-based access here is critical. Setting up proxy without permissions is simple enough - that's by default but... YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT!
Look, man. The point is that you couldnt get access to the proxy to work without validating the domain credentials. You cite this as a flaw in Microsoft's product, while I cite it as a misconfiguration.
Wow, you're a big man being able to use two whole insults in a paragraph. Well smart boy, let me say that I AM NOT DESCRIBING NAT. If I wanted to use NAT, I'd fucking set IPCHAINS on a Linux box. I want domain-based permissions and you know what else? I want caching. That's not how NAT works, that's how a proxy works though - but you already knew that I'm sure.
You described a proxy as something that allows you to share an internet connection. For that you use NAT. And, I believe, ipchains is a firewall, so you could be wrong again. At any rate, no matter what you use, whether it is on NT, Linux, or a router, you will be using NAT.
Im not going to slam your ignorance anymore, but you really need to stop speaking authoritatively about things you dont know. Its highly annoying to those who do know; we dont like bullshitters.
ISA Proxy worked fine - as advertised, until XP came along. Every other MS OS let you join an MS domain until XP Home. You can't GET XP Home to function correctly with authentication on ISA because the client needs to be a member of the domain. Do you realize that even fucking LINUX with SAMBA 3 can connect better than MS's own product?! Why isn't that something to complain about? Why is it a crime to find a workaround like Moz? Why is this difficult for you? XP Pro is a lot more expensive and offers nothing more than connectivity for the girls here. It's a waste of their money.
You are talking about two different things. As I have repetitively said. Getting a computer to connect to a proxy and getting a computer to join a domain are not intrinsically tied together, as you mistakenly thing.
This is not a flaw, it is not a bug. MS did not fuck up, they didnt cripple IE or XP Home. You have it configured as a domain resource, so NT's security is kicking in. If you didnt have it configured as a domain resource, this wouldnt happed. You need to quit trying to explain why you are right, and sit down and read the fuckin manual to figure out where you went wrong. If OTHER PEOPLE can get it working, then the flaw is not with the product.
I've wasted enough time here, but I suppose it's just been for others who care to read this because you're obviously missing the entire point. If you think this issue with MS is somehow all my fault than you've learned nothing. Don't bother to reply if you're just going to continue insulting me, it's bad for the karma.
First, I doubt anyone else is reading this. Why the hell would they?
Second, what exactly have I failed to learn, oh wise one? That a person's lack of due dilligence regarding a product should always be blamed on the vendor?
Third, I have karma to burn anyway. You let me worry about that.
Dont knock the security thru obscurity. It seems to work well for Linux, BSD, OSX, etc.
Another point- he says his company sells insurance. I would at this point bet this insurance comes from an outside underwriter, and thus their company has their liability covered.
Give it up, you will never get the company to spend money on security. There is no reason to: they are insured! The mess-up wont cost them anything, but being proactive will. Lets say something gets messed up; I bet they get enough money from the insurance payment to impliment a 'solution'.
Yes. And better than you, apparently, because I can get them to work without requiring domain permissions.
Also, jackass, you are describing NAT, not a proxy. Proxies have the ability to use NAT, but it isnt a requirement. Moron.
And one machine connected to the internet may not be how YOU describe a WAN, but it is how everyone else does. What part of "Wide Area Network" arent you understanding?
Everything externally connected to a LAN is a fuckin WAN, dickwad.
I'm a jackass because I'm blaming MS for CRIPPLING XP?
No, youre a jackass for blaming MS for your own fuckup. If you could get the proxy to work correctly, the permissions box wouldnt pop up.
XP Home doesn't let you connect to a domain.
No shit, sherlock. Thats what XP Pro is for.
I think it sucks. That's opinion, not incompetance
Its both. Your opinion is that it is MS's fault (your opinion is wrong, but it is still an opinion). Your incompetance is in not getting it the proxy to function correctly with XP Home clients.
Moz offered a way around a problem MS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE
Unless MS built the network, *you* created the problem. If I drive my car thru somebody's house, its not Ford's fault.
So I think I have a pretty good grip on the technical here.
At least one of us thinks that.
For some reason you just can't seem to fathom why this is an issue in the first place.
Oh, I can dig it. I just see somebody blaming MS for their lack of technical acumen. Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
Or perhaps better people skills would help (believe it or not, that almost always trumps technical skills for more senior positions).
If I needed advice from a loser, I would have asked you long ago.
At any rate, for some stupid reason you decided it was actually more important to insult me first and assume I know nothing.
Sorry to be the one handing out the painful truths.
with that attitude I'm sure you'll go far in your 'career'.
With your technical skills, Im sure you will skyrocket right to some dead-end third shift job. Which is probably where you belong, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.theonion.com/3941/
Voice Recognition Software Yelled At
NEW YORK--Fidelity Financial Services' Gwen Watson, 33, shouted angrily at her IBM ViaVoice Pro USB voice-recognition software, sources close to the human-resources administrator reported Monday. "No, not Gary Friedman! Barry Friedman, you stupid computer. BARRY!" Watson was heard to scream from her cubicle. "Jesus Christ, I could've typed it in a hundredth of the time." After another minute of yelling, Watson was further incensed upon looking at her screen, which read, "Barely Freedman you God ram plucking pizza ship."
When you have hackers using automated systems, remote controlled computers, etc, to do their hacking for them, we will eventually reach a point where we, too, will need to use automation to fight them.
This is the exact same pattern you see in every other area where automation is now being used: nuclear power, jet aircraft, etc. Of course, just as with those fields, people should still be required to know how to do the job manually, but the automation will be an eventual happening in networking. Im surprised its taking as long as it has.
The one I saw set up great was set up to use IMAP, and would auto-configure for whoever was logged in to the computer.
The vaio's are nice and small as far as a sub-laptop goes, but the libretto was about as big as my hand. If you needed to use a floppy or cd-rom, you needed to connect it externally via a PCMCIA card. Inconvenient if its your regular computer, but as a utility computer it was phenomenal.
The only bad thing was you needed to use the PCMCIA slot for a network connection (it wasnt integrated in the first models), but it was ok for us as we had a mixed token ring/ethernet environment. Also, it only had one PCMCIA slot, making the additional port replicator, which added another one, a must-have.
Jeez, this is incredible. A linux project getting factionalized and splintering apart (and possibly even fading from relevance). We've never seen that before.
Or a linux distro like Red Hat.
Duh, your name sucks, duh.Loser.
Probably not. Small, custom devices like this usually dont have a lot of options as far as driver support goes.
I was a huge fan of the Toshiba Libretto, way back in the day, so its nice to see somebody else pick up the mini-PC torch. Those things were an admin's dream; imagine having all your software installed on an easily portable system which can fit in your pocket; and this was in 1996!
That one was really hard to get drivers for as well, as I recall; its hard to remember, but it may not have supported Windows 98 too well.
You may already have found this out, but the exchange admin can even configure that behavior to stop (if they want). We generally leave it on to encourage people to use file compression; all our computers have winzip installed.
Actually, I understand what Gates was saying with his Outlook comment. As an piece of software, you can do a real lot of things with Exchange/Outlook, much more than just email. The pity is that most people never use those things, because using Exchange for just email is like using a sledgehammer to drive in nails.
I call BS -- I use Outlook Web Access with Firebird from home with absolutely no problems. It works differently than it does if you use IE, but it still works.
Misinformation is rampant around here regarding MS. Its a shame when technical people lie; being objective is *supposed* to be our virtue, but is rarely the case.
Nice in theory, but your average user doesnt use the help files that are there already, nor do they even want to give the slightest effort to understand what their computer is doing.
There is a reason help desks everywhere refer to them as "LUsers"
Ya, they dont do something so informal and slow like using a newsgroup or mailing list. Its actually impressive; I never got the impression they were all doing volunteer work.
So you dont need your proxy server to not display a login validation? I thought that was your original beef, to which I replied that it was set up wrong.
I was under the impression that having things work properly was a universal need.
Just because something doesn't work doesn't mean it's my fault.
I dont know who's fault it is, nor do I care. I just said the thing was set up by a retard; who that retard was is irrelevant (to me, anyway). You just said it was MS's fault it wasnt working well, which it isnt.
Not to mention, it's entirely feasible that MS would purposely cripple a product for a revenue stream.
Oh my God, its a conspiracy!
Care to direct me to XP Education?
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/
Go to "troubleshooting and support". There have everything you could ever ask for.
You could also get off your lazy, excuse making ass and buy a book on supporting Windows XP. Try Amazon.com
They throw us in with every other multibillion dollar corporation by forcing us to use MS Pro for simple domain-based authentication in a 100 user network. What the hell do my girls need with VPNs or remote terminal access (much touted features of XP Pro)? They don't, but they're going to pay for it just the same - just to get the domain access.
Sounds to me like MS just has lots of features. Of course, you are completely ignoring the fact that MS has Small Business Server. I had always thought more options were a good thing, not a bad one. If they charged more for the other stuff, than you would be whining that they make small businesses pay through the nose for things like VPN, etc. You are just a habitual complainer. Slashdot is a good fit for you!
Again, and I will type really slowly so you can understand, YOU DONT NEED TO USE DOMAIN AUTHENTICATION. If it isnt a good fit for what you are trying to do, just disable it. IT IS YOUR FAULT FOR LEAVING IT ON. The problem is that, when I said you dont have to keep the proxy as a domain resource, you just dont understand what I mean by a domain resource.
You are supporting something you dont understand. That isnt MS's fault. It isnt a flaw, it isnt a conspiracy. It isnt even that they are trying to keep this information secret, its just that you are too lazy to educate yourself regarding how it works and how to use it. Perhaps you are just not a technical person; maybe you need to get someone with a technical inclination to do the computer support.
EVERY... SINGLE... VERSION of Windows since 95 and until XP has been able to authenticate to a Windows-based domain until XP Home.
And home users where whining about needing all that networking stuff in their OS. "Why should we pay extra for stuff we arent going to use? Boo hoo hoo." Just like you. You complain when they leave stuff in, you complain when they leave stuff out. There is just no pleasing the morons.
Remember - things were working just fine no matter what the students brought with them. That lasted for about 6 months until XP Home arrived with no domain authentication.
SO TURN OFF DOMAIN AUTHENTICATION. You know what the fucking problem is, so get off your ass, stop replying and making excuses, and go fix the damn thing!
1) I've only been using Linux for two years now. I've been an MCSE trainer for over six.
Obviously a paper one. I earned my MSCE in less than six months, with very little study. People like you just make the title worth less and less.
2) I'm not the one who spells his online name with a '0', 't0ny'.
Idiots like yourself like to mention that all the time. Maybe its because, hmm, "to
Well, its no mystery that Linux needs a real networking operating system if they want to compete with MS, and Novell needs a better operating system if they are going to compete with MS.
There is a reason builds leak out of Redmond- its because, when they are creating a new build, the development team is using it internally. So when you say they are making a version of Windows which isnt really working, you really dont know what you are talking about.
There was a series of articles linked here about six months ago which detailed the processes they use to create and test Windows. It was very impressive, and very professional. After seeing that, I have no doubts about the future of Windows being bright.
Feel free to mod me down for saying something all the MS-haters dont want to hear.
People like you try and devalue the worth of an opinion by saying they all have equal value, but that simply isnt true. Like this: your opinion is that something is broken, because you cant get it to work right.
My opinion is that you cant get it to work right, because you are doing the wrong thing.
So, cleary, only one of us can be right, because the two opinions are mutually exclusive. And, since your opinion isnt solving the problem, its easy to prove whether Im right or not. If it can be set up to work properly, Im right. But if it cant, your position still isnt validated, because you can only prove a positive. Your opinion is a negative (it cant be done).
Its always funny how you lunix d00ds always say Windows is so easy, but you can never configure it properly.
And what wine works best with them.
The problem isnt that we dont agree, its that you cite something as being the problem which isnt really the problem. You shouldnt be having the proxy require domain authentication if it is causing you problems, its that simple.
XP Home doesnt log in to a domain because it is made for HOME users, who are not part of a domain. Its like bitching that screwdriver sucks at pounding in nails.
You can't 'misconfigure' something that doesn't exist, namely Domain authentication in XP Home, but I can damn sure try and work around MS's power play for more cash. That's all I'm trying to do. Mission accomplished, end of story.
Your network design is flawed. It has nothing to do with the client machines, XP Home, or Microsoft. RTFM, and disable domain authentication for the proxy.
Like I keep saying, the problem is having the proxy configured as a domain resource. I dont know how much plainer I can make it, aside from flying down there and holding your hand.
I dont need any of that, I have my Commodore Amiga 500!!
If the enemy is close enough to scan your RFID tags, the tags are the least of your concerns.
No, they need to wait two years til the NYT discovers it, and THEN report it.
I thought it was $10, a bottle of booze, and a hooker.
They are focused on making their service instrumental to their client's checking process; why else would they LIE about the capabilities of their service, and use insurance as some kind of quality assurance? Its perfectly obvious what they are doing.
My prediction: "Office Guy" goes into bosses office, tells them their product isnt as secure as they say it is. Presents ideas for improving product. Next week, "Office Guy" gets a surprise performance evalutaion, is found lacking, and is summarily dismissed. After company gets haxx0red, boss takes Office Guy's ideas, presents them as his own, and is eventaully promoted to Vice President.
Look, man. The point is that you couldnt get access to the proxy to work without validating the domain credentials. You cite this as a flaw in Microsoft's product, while I cite it as a misconfiguration.
Wow, you're a big man being able to use two whole insults in a paragraph. Well smart boy, let me say that I AM NOT DESCRIBING NAT. If I wanted to use NAT, I'd fucking set IPCHAINS on a Linux box. I want domain-based permissions and you know what else? I want caching. That's not how NAT works, that's how a proxy works though - but you already knew that I'm sure.
You described a proxy as something that allows you to share an internet connection. For that you use NAT. And, I believe, ipchains is a firewall, so you could be wrong again. At any rate, no matter what you use, whether it is on NT, Linux, or a router, you will be using NAT.
Im not going to slam your ignorance anymore, but you really need to stop speaking authoritatively about things you dont know. Its highly annoying to those who do know; we dont like bullshitters.
ISA Proxy worked fine - as advertised, until XP came along. Every other MS OS let you join an MS domain until XP Home. You can't GET XP Home to function correctly with authentication on ISA because the client needs to be a member of the domain. Do you realize that even fucking LINUX with SAMBA 3 can connect better than MS's own product?! Why isn't that something to complain about? Why is it a crime to find a workaround like Moz? Why is this difficult for you? XP Pro is a lot more expensive and offers nothing more than connectivity for the girls here. It's a waste of their money.
You are talking about two different things. As I have repetitively said. Getting a computer to connect to a proxy and getting a computer to join a domain are not intrinsically tied together, as you mistakenly thing.
This is not a flaw, it is not a bug. MS did not fuck up, they didnt cripple IE or XP Home. You have it configured as a domain resource, so NT's security is kicking in. If you didnt have it configured as a domain resource, this wouldnt happed. You need to quit trying to explain why you are right, and sit down and read the fuckin manual to figure out where you went wrong. If OTHER PEOPLE can get it working, then the flaw is not with the product.
I've wasted enough time here, but I suppose it's just been for others who care to read this because you're obviously missing the entire point. If you think this issue with MS is somehow all my fault than you've learned nothing. Don't bother to reply if you're just going to continue insulting me, it's bad for the karma.
First, I doubt anyone else is reading this. Why the hell would they?
Second, what exactly have I failed to learn, oh wise one? That a person's lack of due dilligence regarding a product should always be blamed on the vendor?
Third, I have karma to burn anyway. You let me worry about that.
Another point- he says his company sells insurance. I would at this point bet this insurance comes from an outside underwriter, and thus their company has their liability covered.
Give it up, you will never get the company to spend money on security. There is no reason to: they are insured! The mess-up wont cost them anything, but being proactive will. Lets say something gets messed up; I bet they get enough money from the insurance payment to impliment a 'solution'.
Yes. And better than you, apparently, because I can get them to work without requiring domain permissions.
Also, jackass, you are describing NAT, not a proxy. Proxies have the ability to use NAT, but it isnt a requirement. Moron.
And one machine connected to the internet may not be how YOU describe a WAN, but it is how everyone else does. What part of "Wide Area Network" arent you understanding?
Everything externally connected to a LAN is a fuckin WAN, dickwad.
I'm a jackass because I'm blaming MS for CRIPPLING XP?
No, youre a jackass for blaming MS for your own fuckup. If you could get the proxy to work correctly, the permissions box wouldnt pop up.
XP Home doesn't let you connect to a domain.
No shit, sherlock. Thats what XP Pro is for.
I think it sucks. That's opinion, not incompetance
Its both. Your opinion is that it is MS's fault (your opinion is wrong, but it is still an opinion). Your incompetance is in not getting it the proxy to function correctly with XP Home clients.
Moz offered a way around a problem MS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE
Unless MS built the network, *you* created the problem. If I drive my car thru somebody's house, its not Ford's fault.
So I think I have a pretty good grip on the technical here.
At least one of us thinks that.
For some reason you just can't seem to fathom why this is an issue in the first place.
Oh, I can dig it. I just see somebody blaming MS for their lack of technical acumen. Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
Or perhaps better people skills would help (believe it or not, that almost always trumps technical skills for more senior positions).
If I needed advice from a loser, I would have asked you long ago.
At any rate, for some stupid reason you decided it was actually more important to insult me first and assume I know nothing.
Sorry to be the one handing out the painful truths.
with that attitude I'm sure you'll go far in your 'career'.
With your technical skills, Im sure you will skyrocket right to some dead-end third shift job. Which is probably where you belong, anyway.