1. what does MS have to gain by cooperating? I just dont see that happening, or even understand why it is expected.
2. What exactly is to be learned from this? Wouldnt they be better off working with something else, like building a unix or linux cluster? I really dont know, Im just wondering on his one.
It could also be whatever LAN equipment you are using. For example, if you are using a 10/100 hub, the bandwidth is being distributed between ALL the active ports (so the fuller the hub, the slower the connection).
Using a switch would provide more bandwidth, since the switch filters for destination by mac address (rather than blindly repeating all traffic), but switches are more expensive than hubs.
All in all, however, if you are getting a sustained 10mbps at full duplex, you are doing really well. Most enterprise LANs only run at about 2mbps.
That was exactly what I was going to post, but for a different reason.
Im not certain of the legalities, but I had already thought there were laws prohibiting telemarketters from calling your cell phone- it isnt free speech if it COSTS the listener money.
Now this isnt a troll (at least, not this time), but Ive always been curious by a particular dichotomy in what people say regarding this.
They tend to make fun of Microsoft releasing another OS every few years (95, 98, ME in 2000, Win2k, WinXP in 2001, Windows 2k3). But they also seem to blatently ignore all the 'point' releases (which seems really insane in the case of Apple, which makes you pay for the point release upgrades).
Now Im not going to say that they shouldnt upgrade or improve their product- quite the opposite. In the real world things need to be built and then improved over time.
My question, then, is why is it good for one OS but bad for another? Is it just a blind, rabid hatred of everything Microsoft? Or is it just habitual complaining?
If my motherboard still had ISA slots, I'd probably still be using my SoundBlaster 16. The PCI SBLive I have now is ok, but I suspect is a minor source of flaky behavior in certain games.
Of course, Im sure modern games wouldnt support such a legacy card, but oh well, there is always Doom =)
Really? So that means any applications made with any other language are going to stop working with Windows?
Hmm, that runs not only counter to everything Ive heard, but also against everything done with the Win32 architecture as well. Once I see your sources, I will judge the validity of what you say.
My ass this stuff will be able to track me; thats what the mandated GPS chips are for.
Furthermore, since fuckin' AT&T cant even get a clear signal in half of Chicago, I doubt they even care about this. I'll make a trade- they get me a phone that sounds clear and can send/receive calls, and I'll always let them know where Im at.
But see, here is the problem: the GameCube is made to play GameCube games. If you want something more flexible, go buy a computer; it should be quite easy to buy something with the equivalent power of a GC for $100.
Second, if your goal is to develop games for the GC (or the PS2, or the XBox, or the GBA, or whatever), there is a developer's kit for that purpose. But I really dont see a 'developer' booting up a GC rigged to a LAN and using a buffer overflow in FSO in order to test out their game.
But it seems like exactly the hurdle a person would go thru in order to play a pirated GC game. In fact, the linked article in the additional note specifically tells how to load up a dump of Animal Crossing.
So you can talk about higher ideals, but from its very inception it is just being used to pirate games.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
So, to wit, you are claiming that it is possible to run an entire enterprise network solely on Linux (or Unix, or something non-Microsoft).
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I move that this man not only doesnt work in IT, but is also insane.
There is no way any modern US business will be able to run a feasible IT infrastructure without Windows in it. It is the ONLY operating system that has both the flexibility and the acceptance that is needed. Now, you can be a stupid fool and say you can run WINE for custom applications, but thats kind of like saying you can run your car on nuclear power.
Not only that, but since you ARENT an expert on Microsoft products, you are hardly an informed source on what the OS can and cant do. I prefer to get my expert opinions from experts, not from FUD-spewing jargon moneys.
Now instead of throwing around your foolish suppositions which look good in writing (to you, on Slashdot, where you can preach to the choir), in the REAL world in which I live and work, you just sound full of hot air.
USED to own? Hell, I still have my C64 around here somewhere. It sucks that I didnt know about this- I live in Chicago and didnt really do much in the last week. Reliving the glory days of the C64 would have been great!
Nice anonymous troll. Thus, your stupidity is not accountable.
Going all Linux/FreeBSD would be the equivalent of suicidal stupidity for any just about any modern business. For my own situation, we require more flexibility than either of your two suggestions would provide; strangely, there isnt a deluge of people making custom applications for Linux/FreeBSD that anybody cares to use. Win32 is just too popular.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
You speak of some mythical super-secure platform in the first sentence, and in the second opine how foolish it is to trust something as supposedly omnipotent.
The stupidity lies in the assumption that any platform is completely secure, and your two sentences logically contradict each other.
Dont worry, asking for clarification is something that is almost necessary.
Anyway, I have a question about one of the statements made-
Obviously piracy is not condoned but this certainly opens the door for future home-brew development! Linux on GameCube anyone?
So, you are cheering the circumvention of anti-piracy protection by *claiming* you want to spread Linux to the gamecube. Seems like one of those "wink wink nudge nudge" statement I make about *trying* games out on my GBA emulator.
That attitude is exactly why so many legitimate and possibly interesting projects are getting attacked- claiming to support freedom when what you really like is theft and lawlessness.
I dont see that 'hacking' the GameCube is going to help anybody except for people wanting to pirate GC games. Homebrew projects? Dont make me laugh.
I dont get it. They say "will it perform?" but if you just go read the article you will see the answer.
So why even put this on Slashdot? Slow day? No more stupid "I switched to Windows XP for fifteen minutes" articles to be found?
Anyway, this is the heading of the last page on the article- Conclusion: Large, fast, quiet-if only the guarantee were longer, in case the suspense was killing anybody (or they just dont really care enough to RTFA. Not that I blame them, honestly).
I guess getting tutored in secret is better than just floundering in ignorance.
This, of course, comes as no big surprise to me. I have been working with the stupid and ignorant for the last two years, and have seen this exact thing happen.
But the problem with the 'secret tutor' is bigger than just simple ignorance. One issue is that, most often, the person doesnt even have the prerequisite knowledge to be learning what they are being tutored on in the first place. What their main 'learning' ends up being is just a notebook full of jargon and catch-phrases to swing around at ignorant managers or users to make themselves appear to be knowledgeable.
But unfortunately, nothing is really learned, and money is wasted which could have been better spent on somebody with some actual technical aptitude. The best one can do is just reveal their true ignorance to their bosses, jockey ahead of them in office politics, and eventually get them fired.
Swimming with the sharks IS a valuable IT skill...
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
You've demontsrated just in your above quotes that you understand none of those. While leaving your firewall open/not having one is a much greater security reisk in general, very few organizatons have the luxury of enough IT staff to eliminate most possiblities of people bringing in laptops form home, picking up off-site email, etc, etc, etc, which can very realistically get any of these worms INISDE of your firewall. Then your unpatched machines are screwed.
You guys really keep stretching to try and act like you know what you are talking about. First you are saying that any security measure are meaningless, because some moron might bring in his laptop from home. Then you say that very few organizations can afford to have the 'luxury' of an IT staff.
THEN you tout a hypothetical lack of patched machines, which I already addressed in my post, you ass.
To address your first point, security best practices are there for a reason. If you dont follow them, you are just pretending to be a professional. And *you* are pretending.
If you have a client machine set up well (which is easy to do, especially with the ubiquitousness of disk imaging software like Ghost. Hell, you can even set up an install server to set up the machine remotely), this wouldnt happen. And if your network is set up well, some jackass cant just throw their home laptop onto the network. All of which you would know, if you really worked in an IT job. You are obviously about three years experience away from being competant for a help desk job.
Not only is that statement untrue, "irregardless" is not a word
Nor are you even a competant speaker of the English language. Try dictionary.com, you stupid shit.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
A secure system requires a secure platform. Punting the problem to some supposedly omniscient intermediary sounds like an act of either complacency or desperation.
I just love it when stupid people contradict themselves.
When was this, ten years ago under windows NT 3.0?
Three years ago, NT4.0.
Or were you just using an inflexible security model?
Ah, your lack of knowledge is showing. Security is, by its very nature, an inflexible system. The more flexible it is, the less secure it is. Thus, your logic is not only stupid, but shows you dont know what the hell you are talking about. An inflexible security model- thats a good one!
We'll just say I had to open up vulnerabilities in my file server to allow access, and leave it at that; anything more technical would obviously be over your head.
Nine years ago I set up an NT 3.51 server for a cross platform network and had no issues with the Mac security side. NT was full of security holes, of course, and getting patches was a bigger pain.
With all due respect, I seriously doubt your skills in securing a network. And anyone who is still whining about the security of a 3.51 server has a very obvious axe to grind.
This is just so many kinds of wrong you need to be slapped.
a. Mac OSX is built off a BSD core, so unless you care to claim Samba is a myth and BSD doesn't network well, you're just talking out of your a**.
Read my statement. I said it was a Mac. I never said anything about OSX. Nice analytical skills, chump.
b. Yeah, I tried to hook my Windows box up to an NFS share just now. Guess what! It doesn't work out of the box. Tried to connect it to an old Appletalk network. Guess what! It doesn't work out of the box (Server can act as a Appletalk server, but cant connect to another). There's lots of other stuff a Windows box won't connect to either.
You dont know what you are doing, then. Windows comes with the AppleTalk protocol (or the MS equivalent). And the fact that you are even USING Appletalk shows how security conscious you are, moron. That protocol has more holes than swiss cheese.
Also, if you cant connect to something out of the box, stop being a lazy fuck and go download it from microsoft.com. Hell, they even have a client that will allow UNIX to access Windows 5.x as a server.
So stop spouting your ignorant propaganda. The stuff is out there, you just dont know about it (or understand how it works).
Unlike a reasonable and intelligent poster like yourself.
You once had to give a Mac access? What, four years ago? I hate to sound like a fanboy, but I've had positively zero problems getting these Macs connected to our NT network, and I didn't have to change any security policies to do it.
It was about three years ago, as a matter of fact. And it was MacOS (I *did* say Mac, didnt I?)
I'm also amused that you make the comment that Windows can connect to any network and be secure. Are you new here? Windows doesn't connect to much of anything securely. Windows also doesn't connect to AppleShare volumes very well. It connects just fine if the Mac or UNIX machine is running a Samba server, though, since that's what Samba was designed to do.
No, Im not new here, but that doesnt mean I need to tow the bullshit party line around here that everything Windows is bad and evil. Windows connects securely if you know what the hell you are doing when you configure the machine. Thats a fact. Just because Joe User cant configure it doesnt mean anything- Joe User isnt part of the IT Staff, and he isnt an IT professional who gets paid to do these things. I dont have my lawyer fix my car, so I dont expect users to configure their machines. Its called being a professional.
Ugh. This kind of ignorance frustrates me, because it's a major block in the acceptance of alternative operating systems.
Yea, your ignorance is kind of annoying, now that you mention it. Linux and other operating systems will never improve to big-time as long as you zealots keep walking around in denial.
Slashdot Mirror
2. What exactly is to be learned from this? Wouldnt they be better off working with something else, like building a unix or linux cluster? I really dont know, Im just wondering on his one.
Using a switch would provide more bandwidth, since the switch filters for destination by mac address (rather than blindly repeating all traffic), but switches are more expensive than hubs.
All in all, however, if you are getting a sustained 10mbps at full duplex, you are doing really well. Most enterprise LANs only run at about 2mbps.
I guess the zealot's rush to judgement has been foiled again.
That was exactly what I was going to post, but for a different reason.
Im not certain of the legalities, but I had already thought there were laws prohibiting telemarketters from calling your cell phone- it isnt free speech if it COSTS the listener money.
They tend to make fun of Microsoft releasing another OS every few years (95, 98, ME in 2000, Win2k, WinXP in 2001, Windows 2k3). But they also seem to blatently ignore all the 'point' releases (which seems really insane in the case of Apple, which makes you pay for the point release upgrades).
Now Im not going to say that they shouldnt upgrade or improve their product- quite the opposite. In the real world things need to be built and then improved over time.
My question, then, is why is it good for one OS but bad for another? Is it just a blind, rabid hatred of everything Microsoft? Or is it just habitual complaining?
The service will not offer you three credit cards every time you log in, and you wont get disconnected every fifteen minutes!
I just heard it is going to be used in the Infinium Labs Phantom Console!
Of course, Im sure modern games wouldnt support such a legacy card, but oh well, there is always Doom =)
Hmm, that runs not only counter to everything Ive heard, but also against everything done with the Win32 architecture as well. Once I see your sources, I will judge the validity of what you say.
Furthermore, since fuckin' AT&T cant even get a clear signal in half of Chicago, I doubt they even care about this. I'll make a trade- they get me a phone that sounds clear and can send/receive calls, and I'll always let them know where Im at.
Second, if your goal is to develop games for the GC (or the PS2, or the XBox, or the GBA, or whatever), there is a developer's kit for that purpose. But I really dont see a 'developer' booting up a GC rigged to a LAN and using a buffer overflow in FSO in order to test out their game.
But it seems like exactly the hurdle a person would go thru in order to play a pirated GC game. In fact, the linked article in the additional note specifically tells how to load up a dump of Animal Crossing.
So you can talk about higher ideals, but from its very inception it is just being used to pirate games.
Nah, Im just in a crappy mood.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I move that this man not only doesnt work in IT, but is also insane.
There is no way any modern US business will be able to run a feasible IT infrastructure without Windows in it. It is the ONLY operating system that has both the flexibility and the acceptance that is needed. Now, you can be a stupid fool and say you can run WINE for custom applications, but thats kind of like saying you can run your car on nuclear power.
Not only that, but since you ARENT an expert on Microsoft products, you are hardly an informed source on what the OS can and cant do. I prefer to get my expert opinions from experts, not from FUD-spewing jargon moneys.
Now instead of throwing around your foolish suppositions which look good in writing (to you, on Slashdot, where you can preach to the choir), in the REAL world in which I live and work, you just sound full of hot air.
USED to own? Hell, I still have my C64 around here somewhere. It sucks that I didnt know about this- I live in Chicago and didnt really do much in the last week. Reliving the glory days of the C64 would have been great!
Going all Linux/FreeBSD would be the equivalent of suicidal stupidity for any just about any modern business. For my own situation, we require more flexibility than either of your two suggestions would provide; strangely, there isnt a deluge of people making custom applications for Linux/FreeBSD that anybody cares to use. Win32 is just too popular.
The stupidity lies in the assumption that any platform is completely secure, and your two sentences logically contradict each other.
Work is ok, as long as you dont take it too seriously. The older I get, the more I realize that caring about your job is an attitude problem.
I cant verify this, but once I find what box my Player's Handbook is in, I will let everybody know.
Anyway, I have a question about one of the statements made-
Obviously piracy is not condoned but this certainly opens the door for future home-brew development! Linux on GameCube anyone?
So, you are cheering the circumvention of anti-piracy protection by *claiming* you want to spread Linux to the gamecube. Seems like one of those "wink wink nudge nudge" statement I make about *trying* games out on my GBA emulator.
That attitude is exactly why so many legitimate and possibly interesting projects are getting attacked- claiming to support freedom when what you really like is theft and lawlessness.
I dont see that 'hacking' the GameCube is going to help anybody except for people wanting to pirate GC games. Homebrew projects? Dont make me laugh.
So why even put this on Slashdot? Slow day? No more stupid "I switched to Windows XP for fifteen minutes" articles to be found?
Anyway, this is the heading of the last page on the article- Conclusion: Large, fast, quiet-if only the guarantee were longer, in case the suspense was killing anybody (or they just dont really care enough to RTFA. Not that I blame them, honestly).
This, of course, comes as no big surprise to me. I have been working with the stupid and ignorant for the last two years, and have seen this exact thing happen.
But the problem with the 'secret tutor' is bigger than just simple ignorance. One issue is that, most often, the person doesnt even have the prerequisite knowledge to be learning what they are being tutored on in the first place. What their main 'learning' ends up being is just a notebook full of jargon and catch-phrases to swing around at ignorant managers or users to make themselves appear to be knowledgeable.
But unfortunately, nothing is really learned, and money is wasted which could have been better spent on somebody with some actual technical aptitude. The best one can do is just reveal their true ignorance to their bosses, jockey ahead of them in office politics, and eventually get them fired.
Swimming with the sharks IS a valuable IT skill...
You guys really keep stretching to try and act like you know what you are talking about. First you are saying that any security measure are meaningless, because some moron might bring in his laptop from home. Then you say that very few organizations can afford to have the 'luxury' of an IT staff.
THEN you tout a hypothetical lack of patched machines, which I already addressed in my post, you ass.
To address your first point, security best practices are there for a reason. If you dont follow them, you are just pretending to be a professional. And *you* are pretending.
If you have a client machine set up well (which is easy to do, especially with the ubiquitousness of disk imaging software like Ghost. Hell, you can even set up an install server to set up the machine remotely), this wouldnt happen. And if your network is set up well, some jackass cant just throw their home laptop onto the network. All of which you would know, if you really worked in an IT job. You are obviously about three years experience away from being competant for a help desk job.
Not only is that statement untrue, "irregardless" is not a word
Nor are you even a competant speaker of the English language. Try dictionary.com, you stupid shit.
I just love it when stupid people contradict themselves.
Three years ago, NT4.0.
Or were you just using an inflexible security model?
Ah, your lack of knowledge is showing. Security is, by its very nature, an inflexible system. The more flexible it is, the less secure it is. Thus, your logic is not only stupid, but shows you dont know what the hell you are talking about. An inflexible security model- thats a good one!
We'll just say I had to open up vulnerabilities in my file server to allow access, and leave it at that; anything more technical would obviously be over your head.
Nine years ago I set up an NT 3.51 server for a cross platform network and had no issues with the Mac security side. NT was full of security holes, of course, and getting patches was a bigger pain.
With all due respect, I seriously doubt your skills in securing a network. And anyone who is still whining about the security of a 3.51 server has a very obvious axe to grind.
This is just so many kinds of wrong you need to be slapped.
a. Mac OSX is built off a BSD core, so unless you care to claim Samba is a myth and BSD doesn't network well, you're just talking out of your a**.
Read my statement. I said it was a Mac. I never said anything about OSX. Nice analytical skills, chump.
b. Yeah, I tried to hook my Windows box up to an NFS share just now. Guess what! It doesn't work out of the box. Tried to connect it to an old Appletalk network. Guess what! It doesn't work out of the box (Server can act as a Appletalk server, but cant connect to another). There's lots of other stuff a Windows box won't connect to either.
You dont know what you are doing, then. Windows comes with the AppleTalk protocol (or the MS equivalent). And the fact that you are even USING Appletalk shows how security conscious you are, moron. That protocol has more holes than swiss cheese.
Also, if you cant connect to something out of the box, stop being a lazy fuck and go download it from microsoft.com. Hell, they even have a client that will allow UNIX to access Windows 5.x as a server.
So stop spouting your ignorant propaganda. The stuff is out there, you just dont know about it (or understand how it works).
Unlike a reasonable and intelligent poster like yourself.
Exactly, dude.
It was about three years ago, as a matter of fact. And it was MacOS (I *did* say Mac, didnt I?)
I'm also amused that you make the comment that Windows can connect to any network and be secure. Are you new here? Windows doesn't connect to much of anything securely. Windows also doesn't connect to AppleShare volumes very well. It connects just fine if the Mac or UNIX machine is running a Samba server, though, since that's what Samba was designed to do.
No, Im not new here, but that doesnt mean I need to tow the bullshit party line around here that everything Windows is bad and evil. Windows connects securely if you know what the hell you are doing when you configure the machine. Thats a fact. Just because Joe User cant configure it doesnt mean anything- Joe User isnt part of the IT Staff, and he isnt an IT professional who gets paid to do these things. I dont have my lawyer fix my car, so I dont expect users to configure their machines. Its called being a professional.
Ugh. This kind of ignorance frustrates me, because it's a major block in the acceptance of alternative operating systems.
Yea, your ignorance is kind of annoying, now that you mention it. Linux and other operating systems will never improve to big-time as long as you zealots keep walking around in denial.