If you're in MY home, I have a total right to spy on you all I want, because that's an issue with MY security and MY personal property. There is no "right to privacy" in someone's personal space. You can, and certainly should if you want any friends, ALLOW a degree of privacy, but there is no "right" invokable here. The only thing you should expect in someone's personal space is freedom from physical coercion.
If I PERSONALLY own a store, I believe that same situation maintains.
However, if a store is owned by a CORPORATION with EMPLOYEES, spying is another matter. While the corporation has a reasonable basis for ensuring security, having random people spying on customers - especially in an intimate setting like a dressing room - is going a bit far. There are other ways to deploy security than violating customers privacy.
This is a problem with the notion of the corporation being an entity created by the state with the rights of a person.
Having said all that, I don't believe in "rights", in any event. Stores that spy on customers in dressing rooms should be avoided, but if all stores do it, there's nothing you can do about it because it's unlikely the retail industry will allow Congress to pass legislation prohibiting it. Only mass consumer action could change it, and that's not likely to happen either.
Compared to the other problems caused by corporations manipulating the state, it's a minor issue, so you might as well concentrate on getting rid of the state and the corporation concept.
Now, as to the original problem, employees should not be cops. First of all, if they fuck up trying to BE cops, they make their employer legally liable for lawsuits. Secondly, they AREN'T cops and don't know the law or what to do to handle a situation.
Example: tech guy finds kiddie porn on somebody's computer. Who's to say HE DIDN'T PUT IT THERE FOR HIS OWN REASONS? You have no evidence until you have a warrant and a forensic examination. Meanwhile, his very poking around has DESTROYED THE CASE. Any competent defense attorney will raise this defense, unless forensic evidence can disprove it.
So, the tech reports his find to the cops. The cops should STILL have to get a warrant as there is no distinction between this and a vehicle stop on the street. The government is prohibited from doing search and seizure of anything you own without a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause (which is violated constantly by lying cops and lazy judges on a daily basis, but that's another story.)
And if the tech screwed up and is wrong, and the cops find nothing, your customer sues the tech, your company, and everybody else. And the rest of your customers don't trust you anymore, so you lose business.
Does your company want that hassle? It's not your job to be a cop. If you have direct, unequivocal knowledge of an IMMINENT or IN-PROGRESS crime such as a terrorist attack or child molestation or a serial killing, then it is reasonable to report it to your boss, and the company can decide whether it is reasonable to report it to the cops.
Anything beyond that isn't very smart. There have been too many cases of asshole employees interpreting some innocent picture of somebody's kid as "child porn", resulting in ridiculous persecution of some parent as a result of overzealous cops and DAs trying to make names for themselves. And this is what the Constitution was attempting to prevent with the search and seizure amendment.
Uhm, they DO have security guards observing you in the dressing rooms.
That's what they claimed in the Winona Ryder shoplifting case. A guard claimed to have seen Noni cutting off security tags from the clothing in the dressing room by peering through observation slats in the dressing room wall.
By the way, I consider the Ryder case to be a blatant incident of railroading, and most of the testimony against her was clearly prosecutor-coached perjury of the most obvious kind. Her lawyer, Garregos, is a spin doctor, not a trial lawyer, and his defense was pathetic.
She was charged for two reasons only: 1) the LA DA was elected on the basis that his predecessor was too soft on celebrities (Robert Downey, et al);
2) he is the son of an FBI agent and Ryder has publicly worn a "Free Pelletier" button to movie industry events (Leonard Pelletier is in Leavenworth for allegedly shooting two FBI agents twenty years ago - I met him when I was there - just about everybody in the world other than the FBI considers him a railroaded political prisoner.)
You could have files on your system showing you to be the first direct lieutenant under Osama bin Laden, and files showing his exact location, and I wouldn't turn you in.
Well, unless I remembered the $25 million reward...
But, then, I'd have to trust Dick Cheney to pay me.
What are the odds?
I might turn your ass in if you're a serial killer, but that's about it. Kiddie porn? Nope, not my problem. Drugs? Gimme a break. Did you break in and steal my stuff? I'll hose you myself, not turn you in. Are you robbing others? I'm not a cop and I don't help cops.
Tech support people who report to the cops are fucking rats, nothing more. And if you're a rat, don't ever end up in the joint where people know - you won't have a good time. (Of course, about ninety percent of the people in the joint are rats, but that's another story.)
That's certainly how it works at City College of San Francisco. We pay nearly $200K/year to a consulting firm that gets to recommend themselves for extending the contract every year - this on top of the $150K we pay SCT for Banner "support" which is what the consulting firm is actually used for.
And banish Bush, Rove, Rush and the other morons to their own neocon domain.
No, the Bush administration doesn't want to make it EASIER for people to do a simple search for.xxx and get ALL the porn, whereas now you have to key in "sex" to get all of it.
In other words, it's all bullshit and breast-beating to kowtow to the rightwing Christian morons. Bush doesn't want to look like he's "authorizing" porn by giving it a domain. He'd rather it stay the way it is just so he looks good to morons like himself.
Pathetic.
In fact, the whole notion of a triple-X domain is pathetic in the first place. It's obviously an attempt to pander to puritans by fencing off the Net.
I think the whole notion of dot-this and dot-that should be dropkicked entirely. It's like DOS file names with 8.3 notation. It's stupid. Who cares whether a domain is.com or.org or.net? The same outfit can own all three endings.
You want to find something on the Net, start using structured metadata about sites. Develop a sort of DNS that uses metadata to retrieve types of sites to any degree of specificity. (Yes, I know how DNS works, gimme a break. Figure out a new way - this shit isn't carved in stone.)
Hell, use Google - that's what it's for.
Don't waste my time with this pointless ruminant evacuation.
"these infected laptops where able to take out the network from the inside once they connected back to it."
Interesting.
And a few weeks ago, people here were saying that companies just using perimeter security were in the minority these days, and that "everybody uses defense in depth", so the whole "single corporate firewall is obsolete" argument was moot.
Guess not - at least not in the news business.
Maybe a bunch of/. sys admins should submit their resumes to these organizations, since they obviously are smarter than the incumbents.
Amusingly, the first Linux email server Google result talks about NT going down - that was the problem in that result.
Also, I'm not too surprised about the email security count since sendmail is the most common UNIX/Linux email server and it definitely has had its share of security problems.
It's also far OLDER than Exchange - goes back to 1982.
My point was simply that the Microsoft shills were saying that Exchange was "easy", "stable" and by implication problem-free for the most part.
Google proves that is not entirely true.
The point stands.
As I've said numerous times before: 1) Windows is CRAP. 2) Linux is ALSO CRAP. 3) BUT Linux is FREE CRAP.
Heh, heh, hell, no! I never liked that song anyway.
There won't be any humans left beyond THIS century, let alone 2500 and up.
By 2050, Transhumans of some sort should be feasible - and it won't take them another 50 years to get rid of the rest of the monkeys.
The rest of the species will either transmogrify to Transhuman status, get killed trying to destroy Transhumans, or kill themselves after the Transhumans leave. Or, more likely, all three scenarios in combination.
I can't remember if they tried that. I found out about that problem later when I was researching for repair tools. They may have tried the Microsoft tool, I can't remember.
Most of the repair tools offered on the Net seem to claim to retrieve emails only, not contacts, and as opposed to repairing the entire pst file.
It's insane to store contacts and email in the same file, in my opinion. Contacts are usually a permanent store, emails come and go, the retention rules are going to be different, and the data structures are going to be different. And adding scheduling? Makes no sense from a system design standpoint, unless your sole goal is to make the whole thing so proprietary that nobody else can access it - which is probably why most of the commercial tools cost $300 and there are almost no freeware tools to deal with these problems.
As a tech support person, I can't afford to spend $300 each for fifty different tools to fix fifty different applications, and I can't recommend to a client that they do so - with no guarantee of success - unless their data - or the data re-entry effort - is definitely worth more than that.
My advice to clients is: verify it, then back it up - twice - and then dump it to text format and back it up again and put that copy offsite in a safe deposit box. Then you KNOW you can always recover the data.
Unfortunately, the point was that Exchange was claimed to be "stable" and "easy" and a host of other Microsoft shillisms, none of which are supported by the numerous problem reports listed by Google.
I, too, noticed, that some of the results were not directly related to specific Exchange problems.
And AFAIK usability studies routinely denounce most of the software out there - unless they're paid for by Microsoft. I really doubt you're going to find many usability experts who are all that impressed with Microsoft's products OR OSS products or any software out there for that matter - which was my point.
Also, usability studies are only useful if you have an idea how a system SHOULD be used. If all you do is take the standard system layouts and measure them against each other, you get nowhere.
Consistency is valuable, but usability is far more than consistency.
Your conclusion that because OpenOffice is trying to be similar to Office that Office is "perfect" does not follow in the slightest. OpenOffice is trying to minimize transition concerns precisely because Office is a monopoly and the majority of idiots don't want to learn something better (not that Office is necessarily better, but it COULD be better than Office if they tried harder for that and NOT consistency WITH Office.)
Also I never said usability wasn't quantifiable. I said there was nothing about existing software that was "intuitive" - because "intuitiveness" is not a usability issue, it's a marketing buzzword with no meaning.
Since when is OpenOffice behind the "leader" in usability and features?
Microsoft Office is a bloated POS with excessive features ninety-five percent of users will never use.
OpenOffice has the features ninety-five percent of users need and it is just as usable as any part of Office - even the database part is available if you use a back-end database and the new version will have that covered.
Personally I hope OpenOffice NEVER has ALL the features Office has, or it will likely be a bloated POS too.
"It's no better than web based apps, for sure. But for people standardizing their business around Outlook, it's no worse."
Until, of course, that inevitable day in the future when it's no longer supported because Microsoft is either out of business or decides to change its software and stop supporting the old stuff.
Then the company goes through hell migrating to something else.
Standardizing around a proprietary product is the sure route to eventual disaster. How many times does the IT industry need to have their noses rubbed in this?
The legal industry is still standardized around WordPerfect for the most part. Fortunately for them, WordPerfect still exists - barely.
While ANY technology will be replaced eventually - including OSS ones - designing your systems to be replaceable (i.e., the data is easily extracted and reformatted and adheres to standards) is the only way to go. It will never be perfect and migration will always be a pain, but there are easier ways and there are harder ways.
Burying one's data in a proprietary product is not one of the easy ways.
The geniuses at Microsoft are using the utterly fragile Access database engine to run Exchange instead of SQL Server?
Access corrupts if you breath on it.
And some idiot is telling us Exchange is "stable"?
I doubt that very much, based on a simple Google search for "Microsoft Exchange problem" which returns over 5 million hits.
First client I had when starting my tech support business had problems with Outlook and Exchange double-delivering mail.
And the repair tools are command line? Wow - and Linux is just SO BAD for using command line...NOT.
People need to realize that ANY data in a binary format is going to be lost unless you can export it in text format and back it up. Text is the ONLY safe format for backing up structured data (not talking about images or media, of course.)
Had a potential client a couple weeks ago I couldn't do anything for because his Outlook PST file was corrupted and he couldn't get his contacts out. I found a tool on the Web that claimed to be able to recover contacts (most only claim to recover email), but it costs $300 and there's no guarantee it will work.
So anybody who relies on Windows OR OSS databases are in trouble if they don't export to text and back it up, because sooner or later irreversible corruption WILL occur - and the tools to fix it either don't exist or can't do the job or cost a fortune. Whereas any text data can be re-imported or otherwise massaged and restored because it is human readable.
Microsoft is incapable of producing an "intuitive" front end to any of its products.
Well, Clippy maybe.
Nah, I take that last back - Clippy sucks, too.
There's absolutely NOTHING "intuitive" about ANY computer software except the fact that when you click the mouse on something, something happens (usually...I've seen that fail a lot, too.)
Apparently. You have to burrow through a few layers of mostly empty Web pages to get to the OpenChange site. This project does not appear to be anywhere near something functional compared to the proprietary items discussed in the article. It also seems to be focused more on extracting Exchange data than replacing its functionality.
I believe there's a command to fix that, but you might indeed have to key it in blind.
Still, this doesn't happen all the time, just sometimes. Depends on whether X just freezes or totally crashes. I haven't seen X totally crash too often. In fact, I can't remember when I last saw X crash. Usually this means serious problems with the video drivers or config, which means it may happen most often immediately after an install or driver upgrade. If X works at all, like most of Linux, it keeps on working.
Yes, I matched Philips global sales with global music sales as far as I could tell from a quick Google. Not very precise, but it makes the point.
Philips Electronics made only about $177 million in operating profit and over $900 million in net profit last quarter, whereas Warner Music lost about the same money, losing $35 million excluding one time expenses and $175 million total loss.
As for Sony, they're the most schizophrenic example of what I was saying, and others have mentioned this before me in the same context.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we have to do some distinguishing here.
If you're in MY home, I have a total right to spy on you all I want, because that's an issue with MY security and MY personal property. There is no "right to privacy" in someone's personal space. You can, and certainly should if you want any friends, ALLOW a degree of privacy, but there is no "right" invokable here. The only thing you should expect in someone's personal space is freedom from physical coercion.
If I PERSONALLY own a store, I believe that same situation maintains.
However, if a store is owned by a CORPORATION with EMPLOYEES, spying is another matter. While the corporation has a reasonable basis for ensuring security, having random people spying on customers - especially in an intimate setting like a dressing room - is going a bit far. There are other ways to deploy security than violating customers privacy.
This is a problem with the notion of the corporation being an entity created by the state with the rights of a person.
Having said all that, I don't believe in "rights", in any event. Stores that spy on customers in dressing rooms should be avoided, but if all stores do it, there's nothing you can do about it because it's unlikely the retail industry will allow Congress to pass legislation prohibiting it. Only mass consumer action could change it, and that's not likely to happen either.
Compared to the other problems caused by corporations manipulating the state, it's a minor issue, so you might as well concentrate on getting rid of the state and the corporation concept.
Now, as to the original problem, employees should not be cops. First of all, if they fuck up trying to BE cops, they make their employer legally liable for lawsuits. Secondly, they AREN'T cops and don't know the law or what to do to handle a situation.
Example: tech guy finds kiddie porn on somebody's computer. Who's to say HE DIDN'T PUT IT THERE FOR HIS OWN REASONS? You have no evidence until you have a warrant and a forensic examination. Meanwhile, his very poking around has DESTROYED THE CASE. Any competent defense attorney will raise this defense, unless forensic evidence can disprove it.
So, the tech reports his find to the cops. The cops should STILL have to get a warrant as there is no distinction between this and a vehicle stop on the street. The government is prohibited from doing search and seizure of anything you own without a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause (which is violated constantly by lying cops and lazy judges on a daily basis, but that's another story.)
And if the tech screwed up and is wrong, and the cops find nothing, your customer sues the tech, your company, and everybody else. And the rest of your customers don't trust you anymore, so you lose business.
Does your company want that hassle? It's not your job to be a cop. If you have direct, unequivocal knowledge of an IMMINENT or IN-PROGRESS crime such as a terrorist attack or child molestation or a serial killing, then it is reasonable to report it to your boss, and the company can decide whether it is reasonable to report it to the cops.
Anything beyond that isn't very smart. There have been too many cases of asshole employees interpreting some innocent picture of somebody's kid as "child porn", resulting in ridiculous persecution of some parent as a result of overzealous cops and DAs trying to make names for themselves. And this is what the Constitution was attempting to prevent with the search and seizure amendment.
Uhm, they DO have security guards observing you in the dressing rooms.
That's what they claimed in the Winona Ryder shoplifting case. A guard claimed to have seen Noni cutting off security tags from the clothing in the dressing room by peering through observation slats in the dressing room wall.
By the way, I consider the Ryder case to be a blatant incident of railroading, and most of the testimony against her was clearly prosecutor-coached perjury of the most obvious kind. Her lawyer, Garregos, is a spin doctor, not a trial lawyer, and his defense was pathetic.
She was charged for two reasons only:
1) the LA DA was elected on the basis that his predecessor was too soft on celebrities (Robert Downey, et al);
2) he is the son of an FBI agent and Ryder has publicly worn a "Free Pelletier" button to movie industry events (Leonard Pelletier is in Leavenworth for allegedly shooting two FBI agents twenty years ago - I met him when I was there - just about everybody in the world other than the FBI considers him a railroaded political prisoner.)
You could have files on your system showing you to be the first direct lieutenant under Osama bin Laden, and files showing his exact location, and I wouldn't turn you in.
Well, unless I remembered the $25 million reward...
But, then, I'd have to trust Dick Cheney to pay me.
What are the odds?
I might turn your ass in if you're a serial killer, but that's about it. Kiddie porn? Nope, not my problem. Drugs? Gimme a break. Did you break in and steal my stuff? I'll hose you myself, not turn you in. Are you robbing others? I'm not a cop and I don't help cops.
Tech support people who report to the cops are fucking rats, nothing more. And if you're a rat, don't ever end up in the joint where people know - you won't have a good time. (Of course, about ninety percent of the people in the joint are rats, but that's another story.)
Amen to that.
That's certainly how it works at City College of San Francisco. We pay nearly $200K/year to a consulting firm that gets to recommend themselves for extending the contract every year - this on top of the $150K we pay SCT for Banner "support" which is what the consulting firm is actually used for.
And banish Bush, Rove, Rush and the other morons to their own neocon domain.
No, the Bush administration doesn't want to make it EASIER for people to do a simple search for
In other words, it's all bullshit and breast-beating to kowtow to the rightwing Christian morons. Bush doesn't want to look like he's "authorizing" porn by giving it a domain. He'd rather it stay the way it is just so he looks good to morons like himself.
Pathetic.
In fact, the whole notion of a triple-X domain is pathetic in the first place. It's obviously an attempt to pander to puritans by fencing off the Net.
I think the whole notion of dot-this and dot-that should be dropkicked entirely. It's like DOS file names with 8.3 notation. It's stupid. Who cares whether a domain is
You want to find something on the Net, start using structured metadata about sites. Develop a sort of DNS that uses metadata to retrieve types of sites to any degree of specificity. (Yes, I know how DNS works, gimme a break. Figure out a new way - this shit isn't carved in stone.)
Hell, use Google - that's what it's for.
Don't waste my time with this pointless ruminant evacuation.
"should have updated"
No, the proper phrase is:
"should switch to Linux."
Microsoft doesn't have that AT ALL in their grammar checker.
"these infected laptops where able to take out the network from the inside once they connected back to it."
/. sys admins should submit their resumes to these organizations, since they obviously are smarter than the incumbents.
Interesting.
And a few weeks ago, people here were saying that companies just using perimeter security were in the minority these days, and that "everybody uses defense in depth", so the whole "single corporate firewall is obsolete" argument was moot.
Guess not - at least not in the news business.
Maybe a bunch of
Amusingly, the first Linux email server Google result talks about NT going down - that was the problem in that result.
Also, I'm not too surprised about the email security count since sendmail is the most common UNIX/Linux email server and it definitely has had its share of security problems.
It's also far OLDER than Exchange - goes back to 1982.
My point was simply that the Microsoft shills were saying that Exchange was "easy", "stable" and by implication problem-free for the most part.
Google proves that is not entirely true.
The point stands.
As I've said numerous times before:
1) Windows is CRAP.
2) Linux is ALSO CRAP.
3) BUT Linux is FREE CRAP.
Heh, heh, hell, no! I never liked that song anyway.
There won't be any humans left beyond THIS century, let alone 2500 and up.
By 2050, Transhumans of some sort should be feasible - and it won't take them another 50 years to get rid of the rest of the monkeys.
The rest of the species will either transmogrify to Transhuman status, get killed trying to destroy Transhumans, or kill themselves after the Transhumans leave. Or, more likely, all three scenarios in combination.
I can't remember if they tried that. I found out about that problem later when I was researching for repair tools. They may have tried the Microsoft tool, I can't remember.
Most of the repair tools offered on the Net seem to claim to retrieve emails only, not contacts, and as opposed to repairing the entire pst file.
It's insane to store contacts and email in the same file, in my opinion. Contacts are usually a permanent store, emails come and go, the retention rules are going to be different, and the data structures are going to be different. And adding scheduling? Makes no sense from a system design standpoint, unless your sole goal is to make the whole thing so proprietary that nobody else can access it - which is probably why most of the commercial tools cost $300 and there are almost no freeware tools to deal with these problems.
As a tech support person, I can't afford to spend $300 each for fifty different tools to fix fifty different applications, and I can't recommend to a client that they do so - with no guarantee of success - unless their data - or the data re-entry effort - is definitely worth more than that.
My advice to clients is: verify it, then back it up - twice - and then dump it to text format and back it up again and put that copy offsite in a safe deposit box. Then you KNOW you can always recover the data.
And you obviously have no grasp of the English language.
On the one hand, the idiot claims Exchange is easy.
In the same breath, he says you have to know what you're doing.
When Linux fans claim the same thing, the Microsoft shills - like yourself - foam at the mouth.
Try shutting your mouth so the foam doesn't leak all over your keyboard.
There ARE NO EASY Microsoft products - period.
Unfortunately, the point was that Exchange was claimed to be "stable" and "easy" and a host of other Microsoft shillisms, none of which are supported by the numerous problem reports listed by Google.
I, too, noticed, that some of the results were not directly related to specific Exchange problems.
But many were.
The point stands.
And AFAIK usability studies routinely denounce most of the software out there - unless they're paid for by Microsoft. I really doubt you're going to find many usability experts who are all that impressed with Microsoft's products OR OSS products or any software out there for that matter - which was my point.
Also, usability studies are only useful if you have an idea how a system SHOULD be used. If all you do is take the standard system layouts and measure them against each other, you get nowhere.
Consistency is valuable, but usability is far more than consistency.
Your conclusion that because OpenOffice is trying to be similar to Office that Office is "perfect" does not follow in the slightest. OpenOffice is trying to minimize transition concerns precisely because Office is a monopoly and the majority of idiots don't want to learn something better (not that Office is necessarily better, but it COULD be better than Office if they tried harder for that and NOT consistency WITH Office.)
Also I never said usability wasn't quantifiable. I said there was nothing about existing software that was "intuitive" - because "intuitiveness" is not a usability issue, it's a marketing buzzword with no meaning.
Since when is OpenOffice behind the "leader" in usability and features?
Microsoft Office is a bloated POS with excessive features ninety-five percent of users will never use.
OpenOffice has the features ninety-five percent of users need and it is just as usable as any part of Office - even the database part is available if you use a back-end database and the new version will have that covered.
Personally I hope OpenOffice NEVER has ALL the features Office has, or it will likely be a bloated POS too.
Catch-up?
OpenOffice used an open document format long before Microsoft lamely tried to "embrace and extend" an XML format.
Get serious.
"Exchange is very easy to use, but if you don't know how it works you can dig yourself pretty deep."
"With the right planning and deployment, maintaining an Exchange system can be a very easy thing to do."
What's wrong with this picture?
"It's no better than web based apps, for sure. But for people standardizing their business around Outlook, it's no worse."
Until, of course, that inevitable day in the future when it's no longer supported because Microsoft is either out of business or decides to change its software and stop supporting the old stuff.
Then the company goes through hell migrating to something else.
Standardizing around a proprietary product is the sure route to eventual disaster. How many times does the IT industry need to have their noses rubbed in this?
The legal industry is still standardized around WordPerfect for the most part. Fortunately for them, WordPerfect still exists - barely.
While ANY technology will be replaced eventually - including OSS ones - designing your systems to be replaceable (i.e., the data is easily extracted and reformatted and adheres to standards) is the only way to go. It will never be perfect and migration will always be a pain, but there are easier ways and there are harder ways.
Burying one's data in a proprietary product is not one of the easy ways.
Oh, wonderful.
The geniuses at Microsoft are using the utterly fragile Access database engine to run Exchange instead of SQL Server?
Access corrupts if you breath on it.
And some idiot is telling us Exchange is "stable"?
I doubt that very much, based on a simple Google search for "Microsoft Exchange problem" which returns over 5 million hits.
First client I had when starting my tech support business had problems with Outlook and Exchange double-delivering mail.
And the repair tools are command line? Wow - and Linux is just SO BAD for using command line...NOT.
People need to realize that ANY data in a binary format is going to be lost unless you can export it in text format and back it up. Text is the ONLY safe format for backing up structured data (not talking about images or media, of course.)
Had a potential client a couple weeks ago I couldn't do anything for because his Outlook PST file was corrupted and he couldn't get his contacts out. I found a tool on the Web that claimed to be able to recover contacts (most only claim to recover email), but it costs $300 and there's no guarantee it will work.
So anybody who relies on Windows OR OSS databases are in trouble if they don't export to text and back it up, because sooner or later irreversible corruption WILL occur - and the tools to fix it either don't exist or can't do the job or cost a fortune. Whereas any text data can be re-imported or otherwise massaged and restored because it is human readable.
"It's very stable."
Not what I've seen on Google.
"Results 1 - 10 of about 5,200,000 for Microsoft Exchange problem"
Not to mention mailbox problems, double-delivery of mail, failure to deliver mail, losing mail, etc., etc.
I can imagine the results if I key in "Microsoft Exchange security".
Typical Microsoft product as far as I can tell.
Pardon me while I laugh.
Microsoft is incapable of producing an "intuitive" front end to any of its products.
Well, Clippy maybe.
Nah, I take that last back - Clippy sucks, too.
There's absolutely NOTHING "intuitive" about ANY computer software except the fact that when you click the mouse on something, something happens (usually...I've seen that fail a lot, too.)
Apparently. You have to burrow through a few layers of mostly empty Web pages to get to the OpenChange site. This project does not appear to be anywhere near something functional compared to the proprietary items discussed in the article. It also seems to be focused more on extracting Exchange data than replacing its functionality.
It can leave the console in raw mode, yes.
I believe there's a command to fix that, but you might indeed have to key it in blind.
Still, this doesn't happen all the time, just sometimes. Depends on whether X just freezes or totally crashes. I haven't seen X totally crash too often. In fact, I can't remember when I last saw X crash. Usually this means serious problems with the video drivers or config, which means it may happen most often immediately after an install or driver upgrade. If X works at all, like most of Linux, it keeps on working.
I have seen the future, and it is incontinent.
Imagine the uses!
New Business Plan!
1) Make battery.
2) Piss!
3) PROFIT!!!
Yes, I matched Philips global sales with global music sales as far as I could tell from a quick Google. Not very precise, but it makes the point.
Philips Electronics made only about $177 million in operating profit and over $900 million in net profit last quarter, whereas Warner Music lost about the same money, losing $35 million excluding one time expenses and $175 million total loss.
As for Sony, they're the most schizophrenic example of what I was saying, and others have mentioned this before me in the same context.