Yes. There are still very large numbers of Exchange 5.5 installs. The very-large-telco I left about 6 months ago had just started migrating from 5.5 to 2003.
Of course, the early days of our space program (and the Soviets) had essentially unlimited money, talent and national will at it's displosal. These guys don't.
Anyone who brings up Groupwise/Notes as a rebuttal for what Sharepoint brings to the table clearly hasn't got much serious, real-world experience with either. Been there. Done that. More than once.
Umm...exactly my point. Just because you can download Solaris/Linux/BSD or whatever for "free", it's not "free" in an economic sense to use it. You still have to install & support it, and for those of us that measure such things, that's where the majority of the expense is.
Actually, he's been around as Der Mouse since I was in college (circa 1985). I ran the xterm replacement he wrote back then. Long, long before Theo had his hissy fit and forked off OBSD. Of course, a trivial Google would have shown that, but hey, an AC would want to miss out on an ad homen flame...
If you're already charging for the e-mail, add an AOL surcharge and pay the st00pid AOL fee out of that. Problem solved, and your customer has an incentive to get off of AOL.
Not that there's a reason the telco world has been running it's stuff on -48v power for, what, forever? Try to make that work well across town, though.
WTF? Was this a web-developer only "survey". Where are the apps that could really push Linux into new business environments, as opposed to yet another bloated way to make cartoons on a web page...
Easy answer: because it's Slashdot, and anyone who says a *insert any currently out of favour vendor, but usually M$* product actually works will collect a bunch of mostly ACs who spew out zero content posts claiming your a shill for *insert any currently out of favour vendor, but usually M$*.
Real answer: Because from your perspective in your moms basement, having never actually done something (well...anything, ever, nor will you ever) like architecting a large scale PKI rollout, you actually believe that such a solution isn't possible, regardless of the fact that folks like me have shown otherwise. And so you click that "post anonymous" box and reach for the hand lotion and kleenex and think to yourself "I told him...no matter what mom says, I *am* a man...".
Just make sure you turned off the web cam, little troll, please...
What, exactly, were you trying to do? What were you trying to protect, from who and did this really do it? When you saw (sic) WLAN, is that wide area network or wireless local area network? If it's wireless, why is it you have to worry about that?
WLAN == Wireless Lan. As the primary motivation, we were looking at a migration to one of the EAP authentication schemes (Wikipedia article) for large numbers of WLAN clients. Of specific interest was efficient certificate distribution and management. Additionally, we wanted to demonstrate other uses for digital certificates (SSL, SSH, app signing, etc.).
How much did all of this cost and how many users did it cover?
The pilot probably cost less than $100K, and was designed to cover a few hundred clients. The operational deployment would have been around a $1m, and cover ~100k users.
But let's be very clear, the vast majority of the cost in the project is the people time that went into the research, planning and architecture. This cost would be part of any properly deployed PKI solution, regardless of vendor.
I've got big doubts whenever someone puts Microsoft and security together.
Pretty common sentiment around here.
What good is an authenticated user when the OS underneath gets rooted and keylogged by an email or webpage view?
This is why you rely on more than one mechanism to provide security.
N.B. - This is a problem not specific to Windows, regardless of what some might think.
I did a fairly extensive pilot of this at my previous company, with the assistance of Microsoft. We demonstrated everything you mentioned successfully and did scalability tests that indicated that with careful planning, we could scale it to serve our needs (~100,000 users). We used the Active Directory integration, which made issuing and revoking certs seemless for the Windows users (most of the desktops). The primary application was WLAN security, but we demonstrated everything from SSL certs to application signing. We also used the Safenet CA3 hardware root key device as well.
There is a *lot* of planning required to make this work well, but it does work.
I'm afraid that you don't understand how this works. If L3 is filtering out the Cogent route route information (saying "you can't get there through us"), then any single-homed L3 customer would not be able to see any Cogent network. Customers on other providers that used to transit L3 to get to Cogent will find other routes to get there, as will multi-homed L3 customers (assuming the other provider is suitably diverse). But if you're single homed, tough luck.
Hence if you block china's IP space that may prevent some minor inconveniences but they will still be able to bounce through other servers.
Err...no.
If an end node or a network ingress point blocks a source address or network, there's nowhere to "bounce through" that will let that traffic in unless the source address is changed as part of the "bounce". Think about it...if you were right, then firewalls, etc., wouldn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. There are still very large numbers of Exchange 5.5 installs. The very-large-telco I left about 6 months ago had just started migrating from 5.5 to 2003.
I bet you wash your hands waaaaaay more than your friends do...
Because you were to lazy to post?
Just because you were aroused by giant Clooney ass, it does not mean you're gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Vinge...yes..._Tales of the Dying Earth_ is really very, well, odd...bizarre...in a good way.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
Of course, the early days of our space program (and the Soviets) had essentially unlimited money, talent and national will at it's displosal. These guys don't.
Anyone who brings up Groupwise/Notes as a rebuttal for what Sharepoint brings to the table clearly hasn't got much serious, real-world experience with either. Been there. Done that. More than once.
Umm...exactly my point. Just because you can download Solaris/Linux/BSD or whatever for "free", it's not "free" in an economic sense to use it. You still have to install & support it, and for those of us that measure such things, that's where the majority of the expense is.
Actually, he's been around as Der Mouse since I was in college (circa 1985). I ran the xterm replacement he wrote back then. Long, long before Theo had his hissy fit and forked off OBSD. Of course, a trivial Google would have shown that, but hey, an AC would want to miss out on an ad homen flame...
Oh...you're one of those folks for whom time is free. Carry on.
If you're already charging for the e-mail, add an AOL surcharge and pay the st00pid AOL fee out of that. Problem solved, and your customer has an incentive to get off of AOL.
Not that there's a reason the telco world has been running it's stuff on -48v power for, what, forever? Try to make that work well across town, though.
WTF? Was this a web-developer only "survey". Where are the apps that could really push Linux into new business environments, as opposed to yet another bloated way to make cartoons on a web page...
Easy answer: because it's Slashdot, and anyone who says a *insert any currently out of favour vendor, but usually M$* product actually works will collect a bunch of mostly ACs who spew out zero content posts claiming your a shill for *insert any currently out of favour vendor, but usually M$*.
Real answer: Because from your perspective in your moms basement, having never actually done something (well...anything, ever, nor will you ever) like architecting a large scale PKI rollout, you actually believe that such a solution isn't possible, regardless of the fact that folks like me have shown otherwise. And so you click that "post anonymous" box and reach for the hand lotion and kleenex and think to yourself "I told him...no matter what mom says, I *am* a man...".
Just make sure you turned off the web cam, little troll, please...
WLAN == Wireless Lan. As the primary motivation, we were looking at a migration to one of the EAP authentication schemes (Wikipedia article) for large numbers of WLAN clients. Of specific interest was efficient certificate distribution and management. Additionally, we wanted to demonstrate other uses for digital certificates (SSL, SSH, app signing, etc.).
How much did all of this cost and how many users did it cover?
The pilot probably cost less than $100K, and was designed to cover a few hundred clients. The operational deployment would have been around a $1m, and cover ~100k users.
But let's be very clear, the vast majority of the cost in the project is the people time that went into the research, planning and architecture. This cost would be part of any properly deployed PKI solution, regardless of vendor.
I've got big doubts whenever someone puts Microsoft and security together.
Pretty common sentiment around here.
What good is an authenticated user when the OS underneath gets rooted and keylogged by an email or webpage view?
This is why you rely on more than one mechanism to provide security.
N.B. - This is a problem not specific to Windows, regardless of what some might think.
I did a fairly extensive pilot of this at my previous company, with the assistance of Microsoft. We demonstrated everything you mentioned successfully and did scalability tests that indicated that with careful planning, we could scale it to serve our needs (~100,000 users). We used the Active Directory integration, which made issuing and revoking certs seemless for the Windows users (most of the desktops). The primary application was WLAN security, but we demonstrated everything from SSL certs to application signing. We also used the Safenet CA3 hardware root key device as well. There is a *lot* of planning required to make this work well, but it does work.
But you just couldn't help yourself. I hope you feel better now.
Because, of course, the only reason to use a mouse, and by extention, a computer, is to play games.
I thought it was that powdery stuff in the can under my sink.
I'm afraid that you don't understand how this works. If L3 is filtering out the Cogent route route information (saying "you can't get there through us"), then any single-homed L3 customer would not be able to see any Cogent network. Customers on other providers that used to transit L3 to get to Cogent will find other routes to get there, as will multi-homed L3 customers (assuming the other provider is suitably diverse). But if you're single homed, tough luck.
The parent focused on OpenBSD. He was talking childish.
On my Debian box, I had to change it to the following (undoubtedly because I don't know perl).
Make sure you get rid of any spaces in the URL.
I'm not familiar with this issue in particular, but BBC > CNN for essentially all values of news.
Err...no.
If an end node or a network ingress point blocks a source address or network, there's nowhere to "bounce through" that will let that traffic in unless the source address is changed as part of the "bounce". Think about it...if you were right, then firewalls, etc., wouldn't work.