It runs in OS X fine, just not as a carbon or cocoa app. I use Outlook 2001 all the time via Classic. I occasionally need to get to the address book, Public Folders, and calendars. It used to be kinda flakey in classic. Outlook would just hang up on me intermittently but 10.1.5 seemed to solve that for me.
since we are on the topic of exchange and Mac OS X. has anyone successfully configured the Jaguar address book to use LDAP to access the Exchange Address book? if so care to share the details? I just installed Jaguar and I'm still getting settled in. That would be one less thing to rely on Outlook for.
I own a single family home so correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the association made of owners of housing in that subdivision. If the provider isn't providing a good internet connection, service, etc. couldn't they just can them and get someone who would provide acceptable service? (unless the association board is taking kick backs from the provider. hehe) I would think though, the internet service is the only one you could really bargin for. Phone and cable is usually a virtual monopoly everwhere you go.
--
one way would be not to use Aqua at all and rely on xdarwin and GNOME or KDE or whatever WM floats your boat. At the the login dialog you can type >console and it will shutdown WindowServer and loginwindow.app and puts you into a text based prompt login and type startx. No more aqua. hack XWindows to your hearts content. after you exit xwindows and exit the shell. WindowServer and loginwindow.app starts back up and you can go back into Aqua.
If you don't like Aqua at all you can cause it not to startup at all by switching commented lines at the top of/etc/ttys
#console "/usr/libexec/getty std.9600" vt100 on secure
console
"/System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app/logi nwindow" vt100 on secure window=/System/Libra
ry/CoreServices/WindowServer onoption="/usr/libexec/getty std.9600"
and typing sudo nvram boot-args="-v" will make the bootup more verbose(same effect as command-V upon boot)
--
out of curiosity how do/would you prevent people(like say me with BIND9 compiled on my PowerBook) from using the command line nsupdate tool that comes with BIND9 and maliciously changing hostnames.
I posted this in some other discussion the other day but.........
Why not just use IPSec? My co worker and I have been trying to figure out how to securely deploy 802.11b around the office and I came up with the idea of using IPSec. I'm the lone Macintosh island in a sea of Windows desktops and laptops at the office so I'm waiting for next week(when I get my copy of Jaguar and hence IPSec support) to really get to hack on this but the current plan is use an IPSec VPN(and throw WEP out the f'ing window) to secure the line of communication. I will set up either an OpenBSD, FreeBSD or Linux(preference in that order, yeah I know I've got a BSD partiality) firewall between the AP and the wired LAN and only allow traffic over the IPSec VPN. From my initial research I found some docs on doing wired IPSec communication but in theory that should apply to the wireless as well.
After pondering the "secureness" of using IPSec in lieu of WEP I've come up with one weakness and one side affect since clients get DHCP addresses in the clear and any communication to the wired LAN is encrypted. Say jane sales chick shows up with her personal laptop and tries to use the wireless network in the office she gets a IP address but can't get into the wired net because she can't establish a IPSec VPN. Joe cust service has his laptop in the office too. he get an IP but gets blocked by the IPSec Firewall. as a side affect there is nothing stopping Joe and Jane from swapping music, warez or pr0n. The only weakness I can think of is that Johnny hacker could try to exploit one of the wireless clients(if there are any) and use that as a jumping off point to the LAN or to his/her credentials. Another thing I've given some thought to is depending on the overhead of IPSec you could take the onion skin approach making the side effect a little more difficult to non tech type(we all know how secure WEP is) by also using 64 or 128 bit wep in addition to IPSec.
Since this is all theory until next week when I get Jaguar, feel free to point out any stupid lines off thought, inaccuracies, etc. I've got going on here. If I'm successful I'll probably document it and post on the Web.
IPSec is really the big thing that got me excited about 10.2(and Windows network browsing and Quartz Extreme and CUPS and PAM blah blah.) My co worker and I were trying to figure out how to securely deploy 802.11b. I'm waiting for next week to really get to hack on this but the current plan is use an IPSec VPN(and throw WEP out the f'ing window) to secure the line of communication. I will set up either an OpenBSD, FreeBSD or Linux(preference in that order, yeah I know I've got a BSD partiality) firewall and only allow traffic over the IPSec VPN. From my inital research I found some docs on doing hardwired IPSec communication but in theory that should apply to the wireless as well.
After pondering the "secureness" of using IPSec in lieu of WEP I've come up with one weakness and one side affect since clients get DHCP addresses in the clear and any communication to the wired LAN is encrypted. Say jane sales chick shows up with her personal laptop and tries to use the wireless network in the office she gets a IP address but can get into the wired net because she can't esablish a IPSec VPN. Joe cust service has his laptop in the office too. he get an IP but gets blocked by the IPSec Firewall. as a side affect there is nothing stopping Joe and Jane from swapping music, warez or pr0n. The only weakness I can think of is that Johnny hacker could try to exploit one of the wireless clients(if there are any) and use that as a jumping off point to the LAN or to his credentials. Another thing I've given some thought to is depending on the overhead of IPSec you could take the onion skin approach making the side effect a little more difficult to non tech type(we all know how secure WEP is) by also using 64 or 128 bit wep in addition to IPSec.
Since this is all theory until next week when I get Jaguar. Feel free to point out any stupid lines off thought I've got going on here. If I'm successful I'll probably document it and post on the Web.
--
I can't remember what the source of it was but I vaguely remember a story when Intel was either unveiling the Itanium or demoing some trial silicon. Jobs was at the event, has made some public comment that they were watching the new processor very carefully and were very interested in it. Maybe that rings a bell with someone else? or maybe my memory is just hosed.
I've seen a lot of really critical reactions on other sites when this announcement came out
I don't know how the traditional UNIX vendors do their licensing Per client as well. But
if you compare it to MS's scheme it's really pretty fair. A 5 user upgrade to Win2000 Server will set you back about 500 bucks. Apples is for 10 user. It's the 1000 dollar version that makes it not so bad. MS CALs are what about 30 bucks. To keep the pricing similar For Win2000 Server what could you get for your extra 500 bucks 16 cals for a grand total of 21 CALs. If you have more than 25 clients on you network it's a really good price because they don't sock it to you on the CALs. In spite of it being a ".1" update seem like it packs more that that minor number would make you think. It seems more like the OpenBSD versioning. Their releases usually carry a.1 value but quite often pack a lot of punch in them. IMO Apples numbering scheme for X isn't really very accurate. PB was really more of a late developer release. 10 was really more of a public beta, 10.1 was the real "10" release and Jaguar is really 10.1. People don't like vaporware so they pushed it prematurely to prove they really were working on something and that things were going somewhere not like Pink, taligent(was that the same as pink) Copeland. Apple should have more of a grace period on who can upgrade especially for those early adopter of the Xserve(I believe they were warned though, Pay to play IIRC)
I am kind of curious how the pricing schemes for Solaris, HPUX, AIX etc were/are like. Anyone??
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for saving me the time of having to tinker with that. I got in the office and tried it first thing. That rules! jerky
It runs in OS X fine, just not as a carbon or cocoa app. I use Outlook 2001 all the time via Classic. I occasionally need to get to the address book, Public Folders, and calendars. It used to be kinda flakey in classic. Outlook would just hang up on me intermittently but 10.1.5 seemed to solve that for me.
since we are on the topic of exchange and Mac OS X. has anyone successfully configured the Jaguar address book to use LDAP to access the Exchange Address book? if so care to share the details? I just installed Jaguar and I'm still getting settled in. That would be one less thing to rely on Outlook for.
I own a single family home so correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the association made of owners of housing in that subdivision. If the provider isn't providing a good internet connection, service, etc. couldn't they just can them and get someone who would provide acceptable service? (unless the association board is taking kick backs from the provider. hehe) I would think though, the internet service is the only one you could really bargin for. Phone and cable is usually a virtual monopoly everwhere you go.
--
one way would be not to use Aqua at all and rely on xdarwin and GNOME or KDE or whatever WM floats your boat. At the the login dialog you can type >console and it will shutdown WindowServer and loginwindow.app and puts you into a text based prompt login and type startx. No more aqua. hack XWindows to your hearts content. after you exit xwindows and exit the shell. WindowServer and loginwindow.app starts back up and you can go back into Aqua.
/etc/ttys
i nwindow" vt100 on secure window=/System/Libra
ry/CoreServices/WindowServer onoption="/usr/libexec/getty std.9600"
If you don't like Aqua at all you can cause it not to startup at all by switching commented lines at the top of
#console "/usr/libexec/getty std.9600" vt100 on secure console
"/System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app/log
and typing sudo nvram boot-args="-v" will make the bootup more verbose(same effect as command-V upon boot)
--
out of curiosity how do/would you prevent people(like say me with BIND9 compiled on my PowerBook) from using the command line nsupdate tool that comes with BIND9 and maliciously changing hostnames.
jerky
--
I posted this in some other discussion the other day but.........
Why not just use IPSec? My co worker and I have been trying to figure out how to securely deploy 802.11b around the office and I came up with the idea of using IPSec. I'm the lone Macintosh island in a sea of Windows desktops and laptops at the office so I'm waiting for next week(when I get my copy of Jaguar and hence IPSec support) to really get to hack on this but the current plan is use an IPSec VPN(and throw WEP out the f'ing window) to secure the line of communication. I will set up either an OpenBSD, FreeBSD or Linux(preference in that order, yeah I know I've got a BSD partiality) firewall between the AP and the wired LAN and only allow traffic over the IPSec VPN. From my initial research I found some docs on doing wired IPSec communication but in theory that should apply to the wireless as well.
here's some useful links. I hope to be able to adapt some of the information to suit using OS X.
OpenBSD IPSec
FreeBSD IPSec
Windows 2000 to FreeBSD
DaemonNews Article
FreebsdDiary Article
After pondering the "secureness" of using IPSec in lieu of WEP I've come up with one weakness and one side affect since clients get DHCP addresses in the clear and any communication to the wired LAN is encrypted. Say jane sales chick shows up with her personal laptop and tries to use the wireless network in the office she gets a IP address but can't get into the wired net because she can't establish a IPSec VPN. Joe cust service has his laptop in the office too. he get an IP but gets blocked by the IPSec Firewall. as a side affect there is nothing stopping Joe and Jane from swapping music, warez or pr0n. The only weakness I can think of is that Johnny hacker could try to exploit one of the wireless clients(if there are any) and use that as a jumping off point to the LAN or to his/her credentials. Another thing I've given some thought to is depending on the overhead of IPSec you could take the onion skin approach making the side effect a little more difficult to non tech type(we all know how secure WEP is) by also using 64 or 128 bit wep in addition to IPSec.
Since this is all theory until next week when I get Jaguar, feel free to point out any stupid lines off thought, inaccuracies, etc. I've got going on here. If I'm successful I'll probably document it and post on the Web.
IPSec is really the big thing that got me excited about 10.2(and Windows network browsing and Quartz Extreme and CUPS and PAM blah blah.) My co worker and I were trying to figure out how to securely deploy 802.11b. I'm waiting for next week to really get to hack on this but the current plan is use an IPSec VPN(and throw WEP out the f'ing window) to secure the line of communication. I will set up either an OpenBSD, FreeBSD or Linux(preference in that order, yeah I know I've got a BSD partiality) firewall and only allow traffic over the IPSec VPN. From my inital research I found some docs on doing hardwired IPSec communication but in theory that should apply to the wireless as well.
here's some useful links. I hope to be able to adapt some of the information to suit using OS X.
OpenBSD IPSec
FreeBSD IPSec
Windows 2000 to FreeBSD
DaemonNews Article
FreebsdDiary Article
After pondering the "secureness" of using IPSec in lieu of WEP I've come up with one weakness and one side affect since clients get DHCP addresses in the clear and any communication to the wired LAN is encrypted. Say jane sales chick shows up with her personal laptop and tries to use the wireless network in the office she gets a IP address but can get into the wired net because she can't esablish a IPSec VPN. Joe cust service has his laptop in the office too. he get an IP but gets blocked by the IPSec Firewall. as a side affect there is nothing stopping Joe and Jane from swapping music, warez or pr0n. The only weakness I can think of is that Johnny hacker could try to exploit one of the wireless clients(if there are any) and use that as a jumping off point to the LAN or to his credentials. Another thing I've given some thought to is depending on the overhead of IPSec you could take the onion skin approach making the side effect a little more difficult to non tech type(we all know how secure WEP is) by also using 64 or 128 bit wep in addition to IPSec.
Since this is all theory until next week when I get Jaguar. Feel free to point out any stupid lines off thought I've got going on here. If I'm successful I'll probably document it and post on the Web.
--
I can't remember what the source of it was but I vaguely remember a story when Intel was either unveiling the Itanium or demoing some trial silicon. Jobs was at the event, has made some public comment that they were watching the new processor very carefully and were very interested in it. Maybe that rings a bell with someone else? or maybe my memory is just hosed.
I've seen a lot of really critical reactions on other sites when this announcement came out I don't know how the traditional UNIX vendors do their licensing Per client as well. But if you compare it to MS's scheme it's really pretty fair. A 5 user upgrade to Win2000 Server will set you back about 500 bucks. Apples is for 10 user. It's the 1000 dollar version that makes it not so bad. MS CALs are what about 30 bucks. To keep the pricing similar For Win2000 Server what could you get for your extra 500 bucks 16 cals for a grand total of 21 CALs. If you have more than 25 clients on you network it's a really good price because they don't sock it to you on the CALs. In spite of it being a ".1" update seem like it packs more that that minor number would make you think. It seems more like the OpenBSD versioning. Their releases usually carry a .1 value but quite often pack a lot of punch in them. IMO Apples numbering scheme for X isn't really very accurate. PB was really more of a late developer release. 10 was really more of a public beta, 10.1 was the real "10" release and Jaguar is really 10.1. People don't like vaporware so they pushed it prematurely to prove they really were working on something and that things were going somewhere not like Pink, taligent(was that the same as pink) Copeland. Apple should have more of a grace period on who can upgrade especially for those early adopter of the Xserve(I believe they were warned though, Pay to play IIRC)
I am kind of curious how the pricing schemes for Solaris, HPUX, AIX etc were/are like. Anyone??