Who gives a shit if a Linux user wrote it? If a Windows user wrote a virus to attack Linux the news articles wouldn't be saying "Microsoft Users are Evil. Attacking innocent Linux Users".. They would be.. "Linux is Inseccure and worthless"..
If you don't want viruses to spread, don't have users running as adminstrators as default. Don't write worthless code.
Microsoft is just asking for it, as is SCO.
Ya! I mean hell, if that guy didnt WANT to get killed by a gun, he should have been wearing a bullet-proof vest. Heck, your health is worth something, so you may as well have one just like everyone else.
Also, if that lady didnt want her baby to get killed by drug dealers and stuffed with cocaine, she should have had a GPS installed in her kid. Its little expenses like these that people try and scrimp on, but then they just whine when an accident happens.
Is there any way to improve Netgear routers? Their firmware pretty much sucks, and you can only manage it via thier browser-based tool (no telnet or tftp).
Or is there just something inherently more hackable about that Linksys router?
Personally I upgraded from 2.6.0-test11 to 2.6.1-rc3 in order to fix the famous local security exploit. User-mode linux still doesn't work well, but since the 2.6.0-test3 version of the virtual machine on 2.6.1 hosts works mostly (newer umls don't work), I decide to ignore the problem for now.
Pssst... saying Linux has any problems (especially security problems) will get you modded down around here...
I havent tried it, but Ghost has had the capability for a while of operating as a multicast server. Meaning, you can have it serve out the image as a multi-cast stream, and any client configured to pick it up will get the image. Thus, if you have ten identical computers set up to recieve the multicast data, you can set them all in recieve mode on the same network, then run the multicast server to stream out the image.
The more computers you set up to do this, the lower your time per PC gets (because they are all getting done at once).
I never got to set this up because nowhere wanted to dedicate the resources to do this, and I was usually being pulled into higher level projects. Heck, I would have set it up on my own time just to see it in action.
The guy who patrols the parking lot probably feels the same way about people who don't park perfectly centered between the lines.
There is a world of difference between securing a network and patrolling a parking lot. If you ever get a real IT job, you will learn what I mean (answering help desk phones doesnt count).
Au contraire - it's not that they are incompetent at all. They have 60k desktops to support, and the attempt to lock the platform down (Windows was never really designed to be locked down
Bullshit. I've been locking down things with group policies since Windows 95. Now that companies are starting to use 2000/XP pro as standard, you can lock down almost anything. And with Active Directory, doing this becomes trivially easy (it took some work to impliment before).
I dont know who you get your Windows knowledge from, but they dont know shit.
it's inherently a blown up single-user system. One of those design decisions I was talking about) to reduce the desktop to a one-size-fits-all push introduces complexities that are difficult to manage.
Difficult to manage for your incompetant support staff. Ive managed over 1000 windows machines with three support staff. As long you have a solid admin, anything can be done. Its called working smart, not hard. And since you have easily set up a server to install and configure Windows with MS's Remote Installation Services (RIS), again, it becomes trivially easy.
And in case you didn't realize it, *NIX had TCP/IP long before M$, and the entire stack of protocols for NT (tcp, udp, telnet, ftp, http) could be considered a "*NIX Emulator", quite defensibly, if not exactly accurately.
Of course I realize it. I dont really see what your point is, however. But you are way wrong with the unix emulator part. Just because they are using tools which are part of a PROTOCOL doesnt mean they are emulating *nix. You should learn the difference between an operating system and a protocol, and you may want to brush up on the histories of both TCP/IP and Unix to see how very wrong your statement is.
Actually, quite a few more than that, I was simply talking about the level of computer savvy required to run linux, and making the point that I would like to believe that our American business computer users are more savvy about computers in general than my grandmother. But maybe that's a forlorn hope. *sigh*.
I think you are just covering for the fact that you ignored major issues, like support staff, retraining, etc.
This may be hard for you to understand, but doctors, lawyers, secretaries, etc, dont give a flying fuck what OS they are using, or if it is open source. They want to sit down at a computer and use it, which is what we give them. So go spew your FUD elsewhere; there is a very real reason why MS has mostly corporate clients, and it has nothing to do with what Dell, Gateway, Compaq, etc are selling installed on their computers.
How did you keep those users from double clicking on 'document.doc' from MyDoom? I'm just curious
Its called a virus scanner on the inbound email server. We can scan attachments and everything these days!
I've done both at very high (engineering and systems integration) levels. Have you?
No, just MS. But when I see somebody posting things which are obviously wrong, I have to question either their expertise or their honesty. So, you are either really bad with MS stuff, or you are a liar. Which one is it?
So you don't use windows either then as microsoft won't take responsibilitiey to make it secure.
No, we DO use Windows, because I can take responsibility for making it secure.
but it's okay to be playing petty office politics instead of working
No, its not ok, and that would be another reason to have them fired as well.
Oh, I see. You meant ME. No, Im not playing politics. Im doing my job, which is to keep the network secure. Im also making sure people arent preventing me from doing that by violating company policy.
Since they arent getting paid to install operating systems on their company-provided computer, they are 1. wasting time 2. introducing a non-standard computing system onto the network 3. placing the network security at risk
One of those alone, IMO, should be cause for dismissal. But all three together would definitely give me enough leverage to have their ass out on the street. Plus your afformentioned 'holy war' politics; I guess they would just have to carry on the good fight to their next job.
Maybe you should scroll back a few posts. *I* was the one who said the suggestion was laughed down because of the r00t exploits.
He had suggested testing them as desktops, as a matter of fact. As a server I would approve it, but only if there were a qualified expert to maintain it and vouch for its security. However, there is not, so its a really bad suggestion on that front.
As for desktops: image one compromised server. Now multiply it by hundreds of users. Now add in nobody qualified to work with Linux. Its not only a bad suggestion, its a horrible suggestion
Desktop Conversions: I'm not sure about anyone else, but my company ( a multinational telecommunications company ) rolls out new desktops of MicroSloth crap at least twice a year, and spends the intervening six months trying to make the stuff they just did work - the same crowd that says "You can't have XP because it will bring down the network."
Well, since your IT staff is incompetant working with Windows, Im sure having them be doubly incompetant in Linux will solve the problem.
Network Migration: What the hell, guy, are you still running NetBEUI or something? Linux has done SMB (through Samba) for-freaking-ever (in computer years, anyway). Outside of that, even MicroSloth doesn't really attempt to take on Linuxs' networking pedigree.
Networking pedigree? Linux doesnt even have a fuckin network operating system. At least with Microsoft we can use Active Directory, something of which Im positive you know absolutely nothing.
Likewise, what intelligent reason is there for us to EMULATE something we can just run natively? Why go with a buggy, second rate MS wannabe like SAMBA when we can just continue to run WinNT or AD reliably? What intelligent reason is there for us to gut our infrastructure?
User Retraining: I would hope that your computer users are somewhat more savvy than, say, my grandfather - who converted to Linux eight months ago; or my wife, who converted over a year ago; or my Aunt Jill, who converted seven months ago and uses her home PC for work tasks. All in all I've had far fewer 'help me' calls from them since upgrading them. The hardest 'retraining task' was getting them to understand network logins and remember their passwords.
Wow, so you converted three people. BFD. Call me back after you convert three thousand, all within a two month time span. They will also need to be retrained so they can use their applications, like whatever the Linux equivalent to MS Office is. That means MORE retraining. Then there is retraining the support staff. And converting the infrastructure and servers. This sounds less and less thought out by the minute...
Consultants: LOL... Consultants won't recommend Linux conversion, on the whole, not yet. Mostly because their purpose is not to solve a company's technical problems, but to bill hours (and yes, I've been a consultant and I have been told that I 'solved a problem too rapidly').
And what about this scenario sounds like it will be solved 'too rapidly'? Sounds like you arent a consultant anymore because you dont know jack shit about project management.
When you combine all of these costs, double them, and then subtract the cost of troubleshooting and fixing SoBig, MyDoom, and the other litany of M$-based crapola, and, as the previous poster mentioned, the recovered gaming time (since you can't play a lot of the popular games on Linux) and reduced support hours, I think Linux becomes a clear win.
Never got hit by SoBig, MyDoom, or any other virii, worms, malware, etc. So it doesnt seem like there was ANY expense there.
Also, since the users have restricted access to their computers, they cant install applications, including games, unless they have admin rights to their machine. Which they dont.
Less support? I would need to see actual statistics on this, rather than an anecdote from somebody who has been wrong on every other fact.
Not only is converting to linux a losing proposition, but it's clearly so. At least to anybody with real-world MIS experience.
Linux and Windows are not an either/or proposition, you know.
Or maybe you don't.
It is when you maintain a standardized environment. If anybody put Linux on their desktop computer, I would try as hard as I could to get that person fired. They arent there to play, they are there to work. And their work doesnt involved compromising my security or environment with non-standard applications.
Nobody there is trained to work with Linux, so nobody can be responsible for making it secure. And if nobody can take that responsibility, it doesnt get used.
But the difference is we dont have to spend millions of dollars to convert what we have to "M.S.W.", because we are already using it. Likewise, we dont have to retrain all the users, retrain the support staff (or fire them all and hire new staff), and replace tons of hardware which wont be Linux compatible.
Most people rooting for linux at the desktop really have no conception of how to run an IT department, much less its concerns. By example, you defend Linux by saying "its not like MSW doenst have problems". But the fact is we are already aware of the proper useage, limitations, and management of a Windows environment. We dont know shit about shit regarding Linux. You cant put the entire organization (or company, or corporation, etc) on hold while IT figures out how to get things to work.
At the end of the day, IT really doesnt matter. Its the "Information" which is crucial, not the "Technology".
Thats somewhat of what I was getting at. We arent even near the point where we can have programmable nanobots (or even mobile ones, for that matter), much less ones which self replicated.
Since you mentioned Legos, lets use that as an example. We dont even have robots which can self replicated given the already refined materials. If you can get your Mindstorms robot to assemble another one, then have those two build two more, etc, you begin to have experience which can be applied to nanobots.
Its experience creating self replicating robots I was addressing. The materials used (or size of the robots) are just details.
Ah, so in your world vertebrates originated first, eventually branching out into other animals, plants, and eventually single-celled organisms?
but we dont need to use electron tunnelling microscopes to fix a Buick.
It isnt that small things start first: its that simple things start first. And a single celled organism is far simpler than an intelligent, multi-celled organism.
When you build things to run reliably, you need to be simple. Simple means less things which can go wrong. Complexity can do more, but more can go wrong, and its harder to fix if it does.
But, you can put in redundancies or self-diagnostics, but the irony is that you have just made it more complex; you need to first make sure you can trust the system which is giving you the diagnostic info, then you can accept its data.
The early claims ranged from immortality to Star Trek-like shields.
First, its going to be really hard, IMO, to get these things to autoreplicate as suggested. Shit, we cant even get large robots to replicate; how will they get nano-sized ones to do so?
Personally, I only see nanotech being used in manufacturing, but eventaully branching into other things after a century or so (similiar to the way computer tech has spread).
1. maybe most of them will be unclaimed because people arent into a. computers, b. mp3's, or c. iTunes.
2. also, maybe most of them will realize that sending this place their unused songs is going to cost them money in the form of postage (not to mention time). They could always submit their codes electronically, but that assumes they arent one part of 1a.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't want viruses to spread, don't have users running as adminstrators as default. Don't write worthless code.
Microsoft is just asking for it, as is SCO.
Ya! I mean hell, if that guy didnt WANT to get killed by a gun, he should have been wearing a bullet-proof vest. Heck, your health is worth something, so you may as well have one just like everyone else.
Also, if that lady didnt want her baby to get killed by drug dealers and stuffed with cocaine, she should have had a GPS installed in her kid. Its little expenses like these that people try and scrimp on, but then they just whine when an accident happens.
See what i mean?
Or is there just something inherently more hackable about that Linksys router?
There can be only one!!!
Crap, now people can r00t my GameCube?
Cool! They finally got things working which wintel has been using for years. Time to upgrade all my Win98 machines!
Maybe in two more years I can upgrade some Win2k machines to Linux.
Pssst... saying Linux has any problems (especially security problems) will get you modded down around here...
I'll let you know how well it goes; I had to ghost from hard drive to hard drive, and even *that* was slow.
Sorry, many people like to play games on their home computer.
So unless we feel like playing Quake 3 all the time, or dicking around with a bad Windows emulator program, I think MS has nothing to worry about.
Oh, so SAMBA is licensed by MS to run on Linux? Thats strange, I didnt know that.
The more computers you set up to do this, the lower your time per PC gets (because they are all getting done at once).
I never got to set this up because nowhere wanted to dedicate the resources to do this, and I was usually being pulled into higher level projects. Heck, I would have set it up on my own time just to see it in action.
There is a world of difference between securing a network and patrolling a parking lot. If you ever get a real IT job, you will learn what I mean (answering help desk phones doesnt count).
Sounds like they are copying what everybody else does.
Bullshit. I've been locking down things with group policies since Windows 95. Now that companies are starting to use 2000/XP pro as standard, you can lock down almost anything. And with Active Directory, doing this becomes trivially easy (it took some work to impliment before).
I dont know who you get your Windows knowledge from, but they dont know shit.
it's inherently a blown up single-user system. One of those design decisions I was talking about) to reduce the desktop to a one-size-fits-all push introduces complexities that are difficult to manage.
Difficult to manage for your incompetant support staff. Ive managed over 1000 windows machines with three support staff. As long you have a solid admin, anything can be done. Its called working smart, not hard. And since you have easily set up a server to install and configure Windows with MS's Remote Installation Services (RIS), again, it becomes trivially easy.
And in case you didn't realize it, *NIX had TCP/IP long before M$, and the entire stack of protocols for NT (tcp, udp, telnet, ftp, http) could be considered a "*NIX Emulator", quite defensibly, if not exactly accurately.
Of course I realize it. I dont really see what your point is, however. But you are way wrong with the unix emulator part. Just because they are using tools which are part of a PROTOCOL doesnt mean they are emulating *nix. You should learn the difference between an operating system and a protocol, and you may want to brush up on the histories of both TCP/IP and Unix to see how very wrong your statement is.
Actually, quite a few more than that, I was simply talking about the level of computer savvy required to run linux, and making the point that I would like to believe that our American business computer users are more savvy about computers in general than my grandmother. But maybe that's a forlorn hope. *sigh*.
I think you are just covering for the fact that you ignored major issues, like support staff, retraining, etc.
This may be hard for you to understand, but doctors, lawyers, secretaries, etc, dont give a flying fuck what OS they are using, or if it is open source. They want to sit down at a computer and use it, which is what we give them. So go spew your FUD elsewhere; there is a very real reason why MS has mostly corporate clients, and it has nothing to do with what Dell, Gateway, Compaq, etc are selling installed on their computers.
How did you keep those users from double clicking on 'document.doc' from MyDoom? I'm just curious
Its called a virus scanner on the inbound email server. We can scan attachments and everything these days!
I've done both at very high (engineering and systems integration) levels. Have you?
No, just MS. But when I see somebody posting things which are obviously wrong, I have to question either their expertise or their honesty. So, you are either really bad with MS stuff, or you are a liar. Which one is it?
No, we DO use Windows, because I can take responsibility for making it secure.
but it's okay to be playing petty office politics instead of working
No, its not ok, and that would be another reason to have them fired as well.
Oh, I see. You meant ME. No, Im not playing politics. Im doing my job, which is to keep the network secure. Im also making sure people arent preventing me from doing that by violating company policy.
Since they arent getting paid to install operating systems on their company-provided computer, they are
1. wasting time
2. introducing a non-standard computing system onto the network
3. placing the network security at risk
One of those alone, IMO, should be cause for dismissal. But all three together would definitely give me enough leverage to have their ass out on the street. Plus your afformentioned 'holy war' politics; I guess they would just have to carry on the good fight to their next job.
sorry, I just checked, and I did say servers. My mistake; he wasnt talking about servers.
He had suggested testing them as desktops, as a matter of fact. As a server I would approve it, but only if there were a qualified expert to maintain it and vouch for its security. However, there is not, so its a really bad suggestion on that front.
As for desktops: image one compromised server. Now multiply it by hundreds of users. Now add in nobody qualified to work with Linux. Its not only a bad suggestion, its a horrible suggestion
Why not? Debian users still do it.
Well, since your IT staff is incompetant working with Windows, Im sure having them be doubly incompetant in Linux will solve the problem.
Network Migration: What the hell, guy, are you still running NetBEUI or something? Linux has done SMB (through Samba) for-freaking-ever (in computer years, anyway). Outside of that, even MicroSloth doesn't really attempt to take on Linuxs' networking pedigree.
Networking pedigree? Linux doesnt even have a fuckin network operating system. At least with Microsoft we can use Active Directory, something of which Im positive you know absolutely nothing.
Likewise, what intelligent reason is there for us to EMULATE something we can just run natively? Why go with a buggy, second rate MS wannabe like SAMBA when we can just continue to run WinNT or AD reliably? What intelligent reason is there for us to gut our infrastructure?
User Retraining: I would hope that your computer users are somewhat more savvy than, say, my grandfather - who converted to Linux eight months ago; or my wife, who converted over a year ago; or my Aunt Jill, who converted seven months ago and uses her home PC for work tasks. All in all I've had far fewer 'help me' calls from them since upgrading them. The hardest 'retraining task' was getting them to understand network logins and remember their passwords.
Wow, so you converted three people. BFD. Call me back after you convert three thousand, all within a two month time span. They will also need to be retrained so they can use their applications, like whatever the Linux equivalent to MS Office is. That means MORE retraining. Then there is retraining the support staff. And converting the infrastructure and servers. This sounds less and less thought out by the minute...
Consultants: LOL... Consultants won't recommend Linux conversion, on the whole, not yet. Mostly because their purpose is not to solve a company's technical problems, but to bill hours (and yes, I've been a consultant and I have been told that I 'solved a problem too rapidly').
And what about this scenario sounds like it will be solved 'too rapidly'? Sounds like you arent a consultant anymore because you dont know jack shit about project management.
When you combine all of these costs, double them, and then subtract the cost of troubleshooting and fixing SoBig, MyDoom, and the other litany of M$-based crapola, and, as the previous poster mentioned, the recovered gaming time (since you can't play a lot of the popular games on Linux) and reduced support hours, I think Linux becomes a clear win.
Never got hit by SoBig, MyDoom, or any other virii, worms, malware, etc. So it doesnt seem like there was ANY expense there.
Also, since the users have restricted access to their computers, they cant install applications, including games, unless they have admin rights to their machine. Which they dont.
Less support? I would need to see actual statistics on this, rather than an anecdote from somebody who has been wrong on every other fact.
Not only is converting to linux a losing proposition, but it's clearly so. At least to anybody with real-world MIS experience.
It is when you maintain a standardized environment. If anybody put Linux on their desktop computer, I would try as hard as I could to get that person fired. They arent there to play, they are there to work. And their work doesnt involved compromising my security or environment with non-standard applications.
Nobody there is trained to work with Linux, so nobody can be responsible for making it secure. And if nobody can take that responsibility, it doesnt get used.
Most people rooting for linux at the desktop really have no conception of how to run an IT department, much less its concerns. By example, you defend Linux by saying "its not like MSW doenst have problems". But the fact is we are already aware of the proper useage, limitations, and management of a Windows environment. We dont know shit about shit regarding Linux. You cant put the entire organization (or company, or corporation, etc) on hold while IT figures out how to get things to work.
At the end of the day, IT really doesnt matter. Its the "Information" which is crucial, not the "Technology".
Since you mentioned Legos, lets use that as an example. We dont even have robots which can self replicated given the already refined materials. If you can get your Mindstorms robot to assemble another one, then have those two build two more, etc, you begin to have experience which can be applied to nanobots.
Its experience creating self replicating robots I was addressing. The materials used (or size of the robots) are just details.
but we dont need to use electron tunnelling microscopes to fix a Buick.
It isnt that small things start first: its that simple things start first. And a single celled organism is far simpler than an intelligent, multi-celled organism.
When you build things to run reliably, you need to be simple. Simple means less things which can go wrong. Complexity can do more, but more can go wrong, and its harder to fix if it does.
But, you can put in redundancies or self-diagnostics, but the irony is that you have just made it more complex; you need to first make sure you can trust the system which is giving you the diagnostic info, then you can accept its data.
First, its going to be really hard, IMO, to get these things to autoreplicate as suggested. Shit, we cant even get large robots to replicate; how will they get nano-sized ones to do so?
Personally, I only see nanotech being used in manufacturing, but eventaully branching into other things after a century or so (similiar to the way computer tech has spread).
2. also, maybe most of them will realize that sending this place their unused songs is going to cost them money in the form of postage (not to mention time). They could always submit their codes electronically, but that assumes they arent one part of 1a.