I remember some years ago getting a MASSIVE 20MB 5-1/4" full height MFM hard disk...you had to use DOS's DEBUG program to jump to a memory location in ROM on the Western Digital controller card to low-level format the drive. While you were in there, you had to hand-type the "bad sector map" into the program, off of a dot-matrix-printed sticker on the drive! As I recall there were only a dozen or so....
Of course, I've no doubt things are much different today...the tighter tolerances probably require much more room for error, but I thought it was funny when it came up:)
What is relevant is that they also control the gTLD root servers for.com and.net - and that's what they plan on running Sitefinder on.
OK so why (all hypothetically of course...I'm just trying to grok all this) couldn't the non-Verisign root servers start pointing to a different gTLD for.com and.net? At the same time, everybody takes A and J out of their root.hints files. Wouldn't that effectively take their control away?
Or did I totally miss something in DNS school? Just trying to understand it properly...I know there are probably various contracts/treaties involved but I am thinking strictly of the technical aspect.
This may be a dumb question....but why do we need Verisign? I know they control some of the root servers, but why them? Couldn't the internet as a whole (if it could somehow come to an agreement), give those root servers to somebody else? The list of root servers is static. If everybody just changed the list all at once, their servers would suddenly become quiet and this would be a non-issue.
Of course, I realize that doing that would not be so straightforward, but such an effort would send a message...to Verisign and to anybody else that would try this kind of crap. Self-healing network, heal thyself!
I don't think it did actually - the floppy drives were periodically polled, rather than the drives notifying of a disk insertion.
I'm not so sure about this. I think I remember there was a special switch in the drive that was used to support this feature...there were only a few manufacturers that made the particular mechanism with it...Canon, Chinon maybe...other mechanisms (Matsushita I think made one like this) could be used but then you needed a to run a CLI command when you inserted the floppy so it would mount (ie wouldn't autodetect with certain hardware...this part I DO remember clearly). I'm pretty sure there was something in the hardware that supported this.
But on the other hand, I definitely know those things clicked contstantly, so maybe I'm not remembering it right. Ahhh the good old days of weird incompatibilities....
And I think the A1000 was doing in in 85, so that's almost as long as the Mac.
Awww c'mon now,/. is not really a news site in the same way that CNN is a news site- it's an aggregation of news stories FROM places like CNN and NYT. The reason it exists to funnel stories that are interesting to the geek community, and give them a forum to discuss them. And the occasional editorial/review/whatever.
The object of/. really isn't to scoop real news sites, so quit whining about it!
But the flip side, as always, is that you're giving yourself and your users a false sense of security when you pretend that measures like this will actually prevent motivated hackers from getting past it.
If any admin ever feels secure, they have other problems. Any admin worth their salt is always paranoid.
The whole point of it is to make things a little more obfustacated. If a cracker already knows you're running a service they are interested in exploiting, you are already at risk anyhow. If somebody with some real skills was taking a shot at compromising your network, then this will not stop them, but it is a little smarter than inviting every script kiddie with a port scanner and their dog to smash at your SSH port.
It is a reasonable addition to a balanced security breakfast.
SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers
You know I believe that...it's just that none of them sell anything. I just had some consultant buy me lunch and she was telling me about how they are resellers for a whole bunch of companies including SCO. I asked her what the deal was with SCO to see what they are telling their resellers...she said they are not really talking much to anybody about anything, and her company (one of the bigger independent IT outsourcing companies in the midwest) hasn't sold a single SCO product in over a year. She said from her chair, she wouldn't notice if they fell off the face of the earth.
I thought that was kind of funny....and kind of telling.
Actually, I wonder what interferes with the headset, more than what the low-power transmitter interferes with. Does the thing scream like a banshee if you happen to be sitting next to a monitor or TV set? Doesn't mention in the article, but I'm curious.
unfortunately no...I just went through that recently (including Anteil, which almost looked promising, IIRC). Everything that's out there is mostly a fancy phone book. Not much automation, forecasting, logging or any of that stuff. The client ended up going with SalesLogix *shudder* because it integrates with Outlook, which apparently the sales monkeys can't live without. Also has some integration with the accounting software and does some stuff with MSWord for form letters and stuff. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can even come close to doing all that stuff in the Open Source world at the moment. There is a lack of business application software out there....and it's an especially thankless job so there will probably always be a gap there.
You know that reminds me of something my wife told me about one of her profs in college...apparently he was the author of one of the textbooks he used in class...and every semester, he bought all of the used ones from the bookstore so the students next semester would have to buy new. I'm not sure his royalties made up for the cost, or if he was just pushing his sales numbers or whatever, but I always thought that was pretty funny....
It's not the mail features themselves. At least not as far as regular email goes. It's custom forms, and public folders with custom programmed forms. It's not just the calendaring, but sending of apppointments via email directly from the calendar. It's delegation, it's the out-of-office facilities, it's the task list and sending them via email. It's the being able to open attachments that all of our customers who use Outlook send us that don't open properly in Eudora or Thunderbird. It's integration with our coprorate CRM package.
God I hate the thing and it might not be optimal for all those tasks, but if you know how to use it, it really does a lot. When all of your users in your business have been using it so long that they depend on those features, it's not going anywhere. As an admin, I'm not thrilled running Exchange, but I answer to the president of the company, and he doesn't give a damn about why Outlook and MS are bad and why open standards are good. He likes it and depends on it, so it stays. I'd LOVE to at least be able to at least get rid of Exchange, since there's obviously nothing I can do to get Outlook out of there.
Or you could get your head out of your ass and realize that it isn't necessary to run Outlook to run your office.
Sorry, not *my* head. My boss, the guy who built the company from the ground up and now pays my salary is the one who apparently has his head up his ass. See there's the problem. The boss says Outlook stays. He's willing to pay the money. So I need Exchange. He'll pay for that too, but doesn't really care, as long as Outlook works for him. Give me a linux-based drop-in-replacement, and I'll use it no problem.
Sometimes, when the right person (or people) say so, Outlook is required to run your business. Obviously there must be some serious demand for it.
As far as your feature comparison, it's broken. I'm not even going to bother typing the 5 pages it would take to tell you the difference between a plain email client and Outlook running in corporate mode, but let me tell you, it's more than seeing a calendar.
Open standards for data exchange IS a good thing, but a better thing is my paycheck. Outlook stays. I'd be nice if there was a way I could also feed the open-source-zealot in me as well as the need-to-eat part of me. An open-source Exchange drop-in would do that, so I think it'd be nice.
Right on...I should have known I'd never have a chance at being the admin of the oldest production UNIX server on/. but ours is getting there: Sun 4/280 running Solaris 1 (aka SunOS 4.4.3). Has been running like a champ since about 1990. It was one of the early Sparcs...it still uses the sun3 keyboards and (those god-forsaken) optical mice.
They just don't make them like that anymore....it almost makes me cry to see them throw away a 2-year old intel box...oh well....
You're kidding of course, but your comment struck a nerve with me. Not about MS-bashing or favoritism or anything....but on pricing and fees and upgrades in general.
I mean, my god. I don't want to sign up for your licensing "program", I don't want your subscription-complete-with-forced-upgrade crap. I just want to buy your software. I have X users, and this is the product I want. How much? Seems like such a simple question, yet it takes a "sales team" to fly to my site and interview me and my staff to "get a feel for your business". If I wanted a consultant, I'd hire one. I want to buy software. Why does it have to be so difficult?
Or worse yet, the weird mix of license terms that get piled on admins. If you put yourself together a network with as few a 100 desktops, 4 servers for various things, and a few remote laptop-luggers, that's already big enough to create a nightmare. Let's see, you bought that with an OEM license...so this upgrade may or may not be legal...this piece of software was on a maintenance upgrade contract, so I need to re-install the original version and then re-install every upgrade previous to this one...oops, my predecessor lost the originial certificates with the license numbers for one of them...I wonder if the BSA will audit me if I call the OEM to ask a question to make sure I am licensed properly? Now can I, or can't I image these workstations? I want to hand down this older workstation to an employee who doesn't use his PC for doing very much, but I want to put the software on this new one for this power-user...can I just uninstall it and reinstall it on the new one? Why does it take a contract lawyer on staff to answer these kinds of questions? Why is there even a market for somebody who is a "licensing consultant"?
I would happily pay Microsoft's prices for their software if I didn't have to deal with these kinds of issues. Instead, I am forced to look to Open Source software...it's not because MS (or whoever's) stuff isn't stable or secure enough (it isn't...but I test and patch regularly so whatever...that's my job) for my taste, it's that I can't deal with all that bullshit on a regular basis.
Sorry...just needed to rant a little bit. But to keep it just vaguely on-topic, MS is far from the only ones who do this...although they often seem to take the lead on complex pricing schemes.
Defintely my favorite mouse ever. No silly wheel, yet scrolls. Very cool, but hard to come by.
A second choice would be one of the early Amiga mice. Simple 2 button job, but shaped well and felt real solid.
I always hated the Sun-3(Sun-4? Can't remember..) optical mice. They felt real cheap....but they were kind of cool because they were optical. But they needed that damn stupid mousepad or they didn't work:(
What happens if/when a court rules that such a EULA *is* enforceable? Do you know what you've agreed to? If not, then it's your own fault. This guy is treating the EULA as if it were a legally binding contract, which is the way software companies profess to want it. There have been some truly outrageous things found in EULA-style agreements over the last couple years. I, for one, read all of them because if it ever really came down to it, I don't want to find out that some shady software company 0wn3erz my network by my own permission.
It's the principle of the matter. If companies expect their users to be bound by their EULAs as if they were legal contracts, then they damn well better present them as legal contracts, which requires full disclosure of the agreement to all parties.
I think this is sad news. OE has been my favorite email client for a long time. It starts quick, has message rules etc, and is easy to use. Yes there are other clients, but I will miss it.
It's always bad news when your one of your fave utilities is discontinued. However, if you really liked OE, you might want to consider using Mozilla Mail. I made the switch some time ago and I'm happy with it. Speedy, supports rules, etc. A pretty decent replacement.
Don't worry...if you're concerned about body odour, there is a new patch you can apply! Check out this email from the BOML:
From: Jasper Spaans [email blocked]
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Body Odour Mailing List
Subject: [PATCH] Change all occurrences of 'odour' to 'odor'
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2003 20:00:32 +0200
Hello,
This patch is a followup to creatine changeset 1.1046.1.459, which changes all instances of 'body odour' to 'body odor'.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember some years ago getting a MASSIVE 20MB 5-1/4" full height MFM hard disk...you had to use DOS's DEBUG program to jump to a memory location in ROM on the Western Digital controller card to low-level format the drive. While you were in there, you had to hand-type the "bad sector map" into the program, off of a dot-matrix-printed sticker on the drive! As I recall there were only a dozen or so....
:)
Of course, I've no doubt things are much different today...the tighter tolerances probably require much more room for error, but I thought it was funny when it came up
What is relevant is that they also control the gTLD root servers for .com and .net - and that's what they plan on running Sitefinder on.
.com and .net? At the same time, everybody takes A and J out of their root.hints files. Wouldn't that effectively take their control away?
OK so why (all hypothetically of course...I'm just trying to grok all this) couldn't the non-Verisign root servers start pointing to a different gTLD for
Or did I totally miss something in DNS school? Just trying to understand it properly...I know there are probably various contracts/treaties involved but I am thinking strictly of the technical aspect.
This may be a dumb question....but why do we need Verisign? I know they control some of the root servers, but why them? Couldn't the internet as a whole (if it could somehow come to an agreement), give those root servers to somebody else? The list of root servers is static. If everybody just changed the list all at once, their servers would suddenly become quiet and this would be a non-issue.
Of course, I realize that doing that would not be so straightforward, but such an effort would send a message...to Verisign and to anybody else that would try this kind of crap. Self-healing network, heal thyself!
All the cool kids have regular schwinns, but her unicycle is built...
Or you could just get her the best of both worlds!!!
Schwinn Unicycles
:)
err...this is a project to show system load, not temperature.
Plus, since when is a clever hack not worthwhile just for the sake of doing it? I think it's neat. Next to worthless, but definitely neat.
I don't think it did actually - the floppy drives were periodically polled, rather than the drives notifying of a disk insertion.
I'm not so sure about this. I think I remember there was a special switch in the drive that was used to support this feature...there were only a few manufacturers that made the particular mechanism with it...Canon, Chinon maybe...other mechanisms (Matsushita I think made one like this) could be used but then you needed a to run a CLI command when you inserted the floppy so it would mount (ie wouldn't autodetect with certain hardware...this part I DO remember clearly). I'm pretty sure there was something in the hardware that supported this.
But on the other hand, I definitely know those things clicked contstantly, so maybe I'm not remembering it right. Ahhh the good old days of weird incompatibilities....
And I think the A1000 was doing in in 85, so that's almost as long as the Mac.
First, I think you mean 1995, but more importantly, it didn't exist in NT4 until a post-SP6a security patch (oh, the irony!).
n /MS04-007.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulleti
Awww c'mon now, /. is not really a news site in the same way that CNN is a news site- it's an aggregation of news stories FROM places like CNN and NYT. The reason it exists to funnel stories that are interesting to the geek community, and give them a forum to discuss them. And the occasional editorial/review/whatever.
The object of /. really isn't to scoop real news sites, so quit whining about it!
But the flip side, as always, is that you're giving yourself and your users a false sense of security when you pretend that measures like this will actually prevent motivated hackers from getting past it.
If any admin ever feels secure, they have other problems. Any admin worth their salt is always paranoid.
The whole point of it is to make things a little more obfustacated. If a cracker already knows you're running a service they are interested in exploiting, you are already at risk anyhow. If somebody with some real skills was taking a shot at compromising your network, then this will not stop them, but it is a little smarter than inviting every script kiddie with a port scanner and their dog to smash at your SSH port.
It is a reasonable addition to a balanced security breakfast.
All Categories
0 items found for anti-neutron
sorry dude...
rec.neutrons.anti.marketplace?
what, am I supposed to apply at the bureau of activism before I can be a REAL activist??
SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers
You know I believe that...it's just that none of them sell anything. I just had some consultant buy me lunch and she was telling me about how they are resellers for a whole bunch of companies including SCO. I asked her what the deal was with SCO to see what they are telling their resellers...she said they are not really talking much to anybody about anything, and her company (one of the bigger independent IT outsourcing companies in the midwest) hasn't sold a single SCO product in over a year. She said from her chair, she wouldn't notice if they fell off the face of the earth.
I thought that was kind of funny....and kind of telling.
Actually, I wonder what interferes with the headset, more than what the low-power transmitter interferes with. Does the thing scream like a banshee if you happen to be sitting next to a monitor or TV set? Doesn't mention in the article, but I'm curious.
unfortunately no...I just went through that recently (including Anteil, which almost looked promising, IIRC). Everything that's out there is mostly a fancy phone book. Not much automation, forecasting, logging or any of that stuff. The client ended up going with SalesLogix *shudder* because it integrates with Outlook, which apparently the sales monkeys can't live without. Also has some integration with the accounting software and does some stuff with MSWord for form letters and stuff. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can even come close to doing all that stuff in the Open Source world at the moment. There is a lack of business application software out there....and it's an especially thankless job so there will probably always be a gap there.
You know that reminds me of something my wife told me about one of her profs in college...apparently he was the author of one of the textbooks he used in class...and every semester, he bought all of the used ones from the bookstore so the students next semester would have to buy new. I'm not sure his royalties made up for the cost, or if he was just pushing his sales numbers or whatever, but I always thought that was pretty funny....
It's not the mail features themselves. At least not as far as regular email goes. It's custom forms, and public folders with custom programmed forms. It's not just the calendaring, but sending of apppointments via email directly from the calendar. It's delegation, it's the out-of-office facilities, it's the task list and sending them via email. It's the being able to open attachments that all of our customers who use Outlook send us that don't open properly in Eudora or Thunderbird. It's integration with our coprorate CRM package.
God I hate the thing and it might not be optimal for all those tasks, but if you know how to use it, it really does a lot. When all of your users in your business have been using it so long that they depend on those features, it's not going anywhere. As an admin, I'm not thrilled running Exchange, but I answer to the president of the company, and he doesn't give a damn about why Outlook and MS are bad and why open standards are good. He likes it and depends on it, so it stays. I'd LOVE to at least be able to at least get rid of Exchange, since there's obviously nothing I can do to get Outlook out of there.
Or you could get your head out of your ass and realize that it isn't necessary to run Outlook to run your office.
Sorry, not *my* head. My boss, the guy who built the company from the ground up and now pays my salary is the one who apparently has his head up his ass. See there's the problem. The boss says Outlook stays. He's willing to pay the money. So I need Exchange. He'll pay for that too, but doesn't really care, as long as Outlook works for him. Give me a linux-based drop-in-replacement, and I'll use it no problem.
Sometimes, when the right person (or people) say so, Outlook is required to run your business. Obviously there must be some serious demand for it.
As far as your feature comparison, it's broken. I'm not even going to bother typing the 5 pages it would take to tell you the difference between a plain email client and Outlook running in corporate mode, but let me tell you, it's more than seeing a calendar.
Open standards for data exchange IS a good thing, but a better thing is my paycheck. Outlook stays. I'd be nice if there was a way I could also feed the open-source-zealot in me as well as the need-to-eat part of me. An open-source Exchange drop-in would do that, so I think it'd be nice.
Play all the country songs except those by Garth Brooks
Ha! Now there's a feature I like!
Right on...I should have known I'd never have a chance at being the admin of the oldest production UNIX server on /. but ours is getting there: Sun 4/280 running Solaris 1 (aka SunOS 4.4.3). Has been running like a champ since about 1990. It was one of the early Sparcs...it still uses the sun3 keyboards and (those god-forsaken) optical mice.
They just don't make them like that anymore....it almost makes me cry to see them throw away a 2-year old intel box...oh well....
yeah but the latency time is what kills ya...make sure you've got swap turned off...
You're kidding of course, but your comment struck a nerve with me. Not about MS-bashing or favoritism or anything....but on pricing and fees and upgrades in general.
I mean, my god. I don't want to sign up for your licensing "program", I don't want your subscription-complete-with-forced-upgrade crap. I just want to buy your software. I have X users, and this is the product I want. How much? Seems like such a simple question, yet it takes a "sales team" to fly to my site and interview me and my staff to "get a feel for your business". If I wanted a consultant, I'd hire one. I want to buy software. Why does it have to be so difficult?
Or worse yet, the weird mix of license terms that get piled on admins. If you put yourself together a network with as few a 100 desktops, 4 servers for various things, and a few remote laptop-luggers, that's already big enough to create a nightmare. Let's see, you bought that with an OEM license...so this upgrade may or may not be legal...this piece of software was on a maintenance upgrade contract, so I need to re-install the original version and then re-install every upgrade previous to this one...oops, my predecessor lost the originial certificates with the license numbers for one of them...I wonder if the BSA will audit me if I call the OEM to ask a question to make sure I am licensed properly? Now can I, or can't I image these workstations? I want to hand down this older workstation to an employee who doesn't use his PC for doing very much, but I want to put the software on this new one for this power-user...can I just uninstall it and reinstall it on the new one? Why does it take a contract lawyer on staff to answer these kinds of questions? Why is there even a market for somebody who is a "licensing consultant"?
I would happily pay Microsoft's prices for their software if I didn't have to deal with these kinds of issues. Instead, I am forced to look to Open Source software...it's not because MS (or whoever's) stuff isn't stable or secure enough (it isn't...but I test and patch regularly so whatever...that's my job) for my taste, it's that I can't deal with all that bullshit on a regular basis.
Sorry...just needed to rant a little bit. But to keep it just vaguely on-topic, MS is far from the only ones who do this...although they often seem to take the lead on complex pricing schemes.
Defintely my favorite mouse ever. No silly wheel, yet scrolls. Very cool, but hard to come by.
:(
A second choice would be one of the early Amiga mice. Simple 2 button job, but shaped well and felt real solid.
I always hated the Sun-3(Sun-4? Can't remember..) optical mice. They felt real cheap....but they were kind of cool because they were optical. But they needed that damn stupid mousepad or they didn't work
What happens if/when a court rules that such a EULA *is* enforceable? Do you know what you've agreed to? If not, then it's your own fault. This guy is treating the EULA as if it were a legally binding contract, which is the way software companies profess to want it. There have been some truly outrageous things found in EULA-style agreements over the last couple years. I, for one, read all of them because if it ever really came down to it, I don't want to find out that some shady software company 0wn3erz my network by my own permission.
It's the principle of the matter. If companies expect their users to be bound by their EULAs as if they were legal contracts, then they damn well better present them as legal contracts, which requires full disclosure of the agreement to all parties.
Would you sign a contract you couldn't read?
I think this is sad news. OE has been my favorite email client for a long time. It starts quick, has message rules etc, and is easy to use. Yes there are other clients, but I will miss it.
It's always bad news when your one of your fave utilities is discontinued. However, if you really liked OE, you might want to consider using Mozilla Mail. I made the switch some time ago and I'm happy with it. Speedy, supports rules, etc. A pretty decent replacement.
Don't worry...if you're concerned about body odour, there is a new patch you can apply! Check out this email from the BOML:
From: Jasper Spaans [email blocked]
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Body Odour Mailing List
Subject: [PATCH] Change all occurrences of 'odour' to 'odor'
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2003 20:00:32 +0200
Hello,
This patch is a followup to creatine changeset 1.1046.1.459, which changes all instances of 'body odour' to 'body odor'.