Using "Parent/Child" would indicate that a "parent" is exercising direct control over the "child". This will definitely not do. Children are unique, individual little people and must be free to choose their own path and discover their own inner potential!
If we are going to be PC we have to go all the way:-)
I say, refuse to sell them drives until the "whiner" is identified and held up to public ridicule. That goes for the bleeding-heart bureaucrat who took this whiner seriously instead of telling them to "grow-the-hell-up!"
First of all, let me say, that a good forensics professional can do a lot to determine what transpired on a computer siezed into evidence.
That being said, a good hacker can go a long way toward misleading an average forenzics expert.
But there is another issue here. If end users are called on to be responsible for securing their computers against attack (many of whom are still trying to figure out that "cup-holder" thingy), shouldn't the paid professionals responsible for the attacked system bear as much responsibility?
ACME Sysadmin:"Your computer hacked my system!".
Home User:"Not me! Someone must have hacked in and used it!"
ACME Sysadmin:"Not my problem, you are responsible for securing your internet connected computer."
Home User:"And you aren't? You get paid to know how to secure your stuff - I have to rely on Micrososft's word!"
Personally, I believe that with operating ANY equipment (car, gun, computer, can-opener,...) the user must be responsible for it's (mis)use and should make a reasonable attempt at educating themselves in it's proper use.
But then, what's "reasonable"? Should the manufacturer of the "device" make the device "safe" by default? Or, if the device is deemed fundamentally "unsafe" by it's nature (cars, guns, computers...?) should a proficency test and a license be required to operate it?
I don't have the answers here. But as computers become more and more incorporated into every part of our lives, their irresponsible/mis-use will have graver consequences.
We are holding gun and auto-makers more and more responsible for what consumers are doing with their products and requiring safer-by-default specifications. Although it may seem a leap now to put conputers next to those items, it won't be long before their ubiquity will require enforced due dilligence on everyone's part.
This really isn't rocket science, is it? I mean WTF?
How hard is it to implement
count++;
?
I don't think it's a matter of open- or closed-source (although I'd feel better about it being open), but, my God!, how hard is it to take basic imput and tally it?
Aren't these companies bonded? If they are selling a voting system to the government and atesting to its accuracy, they should be fined BIG TIME if their quality control is so bad.
Give me a break. Complex programs are written and used all the time without this sort of cock-up (Banking industry, computerized slot machines, auto-pilot software). For a company to produce and sell [relatively] simple software like this and have the "glitches" they do borders on criminal negligence and stupidity!
Am I wrong in thinking that you could assign this project to a class of undergrads and have a tighter, more accurate system?
:-) Heh. What I was really saying was that I don't trust "my" U.S. government - but at least I can have a little control -- as would other citizens of [most] other countries. If there IS going to be control at all, it should be on a country-by-country basis over the resources within their reach - not by the U.N. where NONE of us will have ANY direct control.
Uhmm. For the humour-impared moderators, let me explain the parent (modded Troll) post: I wasn't bashing Linux, in fact, I wrote the damned thing on a RH 9.0 box. I had just had a discussion with someone from accounting regarding their daily printing of huge transactions on greenbar paper. I recommended they have the reports printed to PDF and written to CDs for archiving - instead of killing a tree for breakfast every day! I recommended a Linux printer-to-pdf solution since the one for our AS400 would be expensive.
For Peete's sake, get a clue (and a sense of humour)
At work I use a RH 9 Box and I LOVE/need my 6 virtual desktops - I have been wishing for Apple to implement it since 10.0.
At home, I installed Panther. I have to say, for what I use virtual desktops for, Expose does even better! It is an AMAZING productivity tool!
I have 3 Monitors (a 22" flat-panel and 2 Dell 17") and often have Photoshop (with many images open), Safari, iTunes, iChatAV, several terminal windows, etc, etc open on various monitors, cluttering the desktop. I've re-mapped the middle mouse button (sorry, Apple NEEDS to come out with a 3-button scroll-wheel mouse) to "All Applications" Expose and I can instantly get to where I need to go while Still being able to see and monitor what is happening in my other apps.
With virtual desktops I am always having to switch back and forth to "check in on" the progress of, for instance downloads, compiling, etc. I use my other monitors for that and use Expose for "digging down" into the mass of windows on my 22" center monitor. I've yet to wish for virtual desktops since Panther.
Just my opinion, but I'd have paid $129.00 for that alone now that I'm hooked.
@Stake is just the new name of l0pht Heavy Industries (remember l0phtcrack anyone?). Only now they've gotten used to feeding at the corporate trough. They used to be a lean, mean, usefull, security (through hacking) machine, albeit a bit on the grey side of the law. At least then you could count on what came out of them to be unfettered by corporate sponsorship!
I don't care if Microsoft phoned them up or not. Geer's report was simply common sense. So much so, that I'm suprised it got released as a "paper". Maybe I'll release a paper that proclaims "it is better to breathe fresh air than car exhaust". How can a position like Greer's paper be "expressing 'values and opinions [of the report] not in line with @stake's views."?
@Stake has forgotten it's independent, anti-establishment roots. They have lost all credibility, IMO. The link to Microsoft over the firing (whether MS actually picked up the phone or not) is as obvious as the point of the paper in question.
Maybe their ought to be a new company formed: Greer, Lamo and Assoc. I'd trust what they said when it comes to security over anything @Stake says now.
The problem is that there aren't any alternatives - for me. Is there an Indie release of LOTR? Will they do as good a job at entertaining me as this one [probably] will?
I will go to the theater and see this movie. I will go because it is very well done, needs to be seen on the big screen, and I live in North Pole, Alaska and my dog sled is up on blocks at the moment.
I don't support Microsoft (ethically) either, yet I have OfficeMac loaded on my Mac because OOo doesn't open some spreadsheets properly for me and I have to be able to coexist with the rest of the world.
I will make use of the products offered by the MPAA and Microsoft when there are no alternatives. In the mean time I will do everything I can to support Indie/Open Source offerings at every oportunity.
BTW, I own the LOTR/Hobbit/Silmarilian books and have read them MANY times. As pleasurable as it is to curl up with a good book, I also like to take my family to the movies and enjoy the experience together.
Though I applaud your dedication to your "ethics", you remind me of the "professional protesters" I pass everday on the way to work (yes, I work. I have to support a family. I have to be able to afford movie tickets.) I see the same people out there protesting about anything and everything for months on end. You have to admire their fortitude - I'd never be able to afford that much time off work. I have to live in the real world. Where do you suppose they get their funding?
If it makes you feel any better, I grumble and complain loudly at paying $7.50 for a ticket. But it must be worth it, because I still pay it for two or three must see movies a year.
Oh, when bandwidth and compression technology are at the point where I can perhaps download a movie and play it at full digital quality on my 42" plasma TV - you may occasionally see me protesting the MPAA more directly. But, all things considered, I'd MUCH prefer to have a legal alternative - I've already proven that I'm willing to pay for it.
Not to be a n00b, but I can't make too much sense of the benchmark the story linked to
You actually READ the article?!? Man! You ARE a N00b!
Looks like a great leap in the right direction...
on
Samba 3.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But...
One of the stumbling blocks I've run into in the past (I am no Samba guru) is dealing with the occasionally complex, nested groupings, permisions, and far more detailed ACLs than the ext2-3 filesystems provide. I know that there are some filesystems (and what? overlays?) that can be applied to ext3 which allow more than OWNER-GROUP-WORLD permissions.
How does this improved AD integration tie in with the various exended-ACL solutions?
I would LOVE to yank most or all of our windows fileservers and replace them with Linux boxes. The increased security and protection from viruses, etc. would be great. But with thousands of users in hundreds of departments in our domain(s) needing to access some of the same resources with different permissions - I've not found a satisfactory Linux solution.
Obviously, I'm missing something. But it would be great to have an out-of-the-box solution that takes the best of NTFS (for what it's worth) and the best of journaled Linux FSs to provide a truly stable, yet flexible fileserver.
Any/.'ers have a solution that's worked for them which you'd be willing to share?
We've used snort on our networks for years. With the individual LANs spread accross over 30 distant locations, it has been invaluable (and cost effective) for us. We had been able to coax all major functionality out of it by combing through the documentation on snort.org and googling. However, we've recently implemented much broader integration of snort at more collection points around our WAN which required modifying and updating our design. One of our security technicians - who also wears a thousand other hats - purchased the book. He was able to implement new features and bring a test system online in a fraction of the time - even without much prior direct experience dealing directly with the snort codebase.
Google is great, but there is nothing like picking up a well-organized resource book, especially when tying other modules (like ACID, MySQL, etc.) into the mix. Besides, when you can see information in a single, coherent, organized form, you are able to get a much better feel for the big picture, instead of just the pieces of the puzzle as separate components.
And it never hurts to have a bookshelf packed with technical reference manuals behind your desk for then the PHBs walk in;-)
Because, say, last year we went hunting and lived in the same tent. This year, we would stay in separate tents. Her being a woman will change the logistics of certain things. I don't make a habit of putting myself into situations where I am dressing, bathing, relieving myself, etc. around women, unless it's my wife - no mater how well I know them or what my intentions toward them are. I have a teenage daughter. She doesn't change in front of me or vice-versa and I know her very well.
I know, how quaint and old fashioned. But it is social conventions like this which help society remain civilized. There is such a thing as propriety. I'm not saying that you have to be a prude about it, but human nature, being what it is, is often best served by having some boundries to work within.
Just as with this brain-scan privacy issue. People are up in arms about it because of human nature. We fear that if it can be abused, it will be. And we also know that once the camel's nose is under the tent, it is very difficult to get it to back out.
You missed my point. I said that they should be treated differently when it relates to issues that are directly affected by their sexual orientation. To put it in the terms of your post: what if I made friends with someone who I thought was a heterosexual male. If I later found out "he" turned out to be a woman, I would be hurt at the deception, but would probably still retain their friendship (because, by definition, our relationship would have been platonic up to that point - I'm straight remember). However, our relationship would change - I would no longer change clothes in front of her or sleep in the same tent while camping, etc. That is not discrimination. Her gender has a direct relation and impact on those activities. And my wife would probably have a thing or two to say about it as well;-)
As long as straights suffer an irrational fear that every gay man is going to rape them or seduce them (and God forbid that you actually like it!) your comment is true.
As a former military member (Navy) I disagree with your take on the issue. I'm not afraid of being raped by a homosexual. I believe that they have every bit as much restraint as I do when it comes to being sexually aroused. After all, I don't rape every beautiful woman on the street I see...
On the other hand, military members of the same gender are in daily situations where there is no privacy. In bootcamp you have 80+ guys showering together. As a matter of personal preference, I would rather not have someone who is sexually attracted to me be allowed to watch me showering. You might say that it is harmless - "he's not going to touch you", but I say that's not the point. If it were, then let me shower with the female recruits. I promise I won't touch them, and they shouldn't mind that I'm watching, since I won't rape them?
Can I be a girl-scout leader? No. Why not? Can I join the WMBA or Ladies Soccer Team in their lockerroom while they are getting dressed? No. Why not? What makes homosexuals feel they have any more rights than I do in that respect?
I have firends and collegues who are homosexuals and I get along fine with them - but as far as my privacy is concerned they are a different gender. I won't ever discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference in the same way I won't discriminate against someone because they are a different race or gender. But I will take into consideration their sexual orientation when it comes to being in situations where I wouldn't expect a woman to be in with me.
Everyone loves to call people homophobic or gay-bashers because they don't want to swap spit with one. As far as I'm concerned, "alternate-lifestyle" people should be treated as if they were their own (third) gender and make judgements accordingly. That doesn't mean discriminate against them. Is it discrimination to not hire a fat hairy "man" to serve as a waitress in a topless bar (or hooters)? No. Is it descrimination to not hire a 400 lb woman to be a jockey? No. There are just some situations where you have to take into consideration the issues involved. When I have relatives over, I don't have their boys sleep in with my daughter in her bedroom or their girls sleep in with my son? Why not? Are they going to go at it like rabbits? - probably not. I just don't feel it is right.
There are people out there who are actively hostile toward homosexuals - I am not one of them and resent the implication that because I'm straight, I'm intollerant or closed-minded.
As to gays in the military - I'm all for it. But put them in their own barracks and have them bunk together - just like the women do. Either that, or make everybody the same and let me bunk with the women!
I am the senior Systems Administrator for a large school district, so let me take a stab it. First, kudos on getting off your butt and doing something about the problem! I wish more students would get involved like you did.
About the "approved" software lists: It sounds like yours aren't kept up to date - which is a bad thing, but most likely they are only dusted off when "the management" needs to make a point or back it's position. That being said, they are there for several good reasons. They are intended to help agregate the functionality of software classes so that software that performs very similar tasks aren't duplicated (ie if you use MS Office, why buy WordPerfect too?, etc). Another reason is, quite simply, to make it easier on us:-) Most people don't know this, but IT and helpdesk staff aren't magically endowed with the ability to be instant experts is every piece of software ever written. Yet people will go out to Wall-Mart, buy a smartly packaged app, install it and call the helpdesk when they can't figure out how to use it or when it breaks somethig else on their system. We've never even heard of it before, do not have a copy to put up in front of us, yet we are supposed to solve their problem? The other day I had one of our accounting people call me to ask how to do something esoteric with MS Access. How the hell should I know? I use MySQL. So I fired up both google and Access and hit "help". Sure enough, I came up with the answer. But, geeze, give me a break! This happens all the time. Now you want to add a whole new operating system to the works? Like I said, the helpdesk technicians aren't going to just know how to troubleshoot it. And don't say "We won't call the helpdesk" - it always happens:-)
But, getting down the OSS issue. I am happy to anounce that I have been finally given approval to deploy OSS software as a "standard" at all of our 35+ locations. All new computers ordered (whether PC or Mac) will be delivered with Open Office! Those who find a specific function that it will not support which keeps them from doing their job, will be allowed to purchase MS Office (those with current licenses will be able to keep them until they need to upgrade).
In addition to this, we will be moving off Active Directory as our "primary" Directory Service and moving to OpenLDAP this summer (Active Directory will take it's queues from LDAP). Along with this change, we will be implementing an "Integrated Learning System" for managing student accounts, folders, hand-in/hand-out, attendance, etc. which will be developed in-house and be based on existing Open Source Software (I won't mention the name yet, because I have yet to get the blessing the authors about working\modding it to the extent we eventually want to). When it is completed, we plan on re-releasing our implementation back to the Open Source community. (we'd also like help from them;-)
As far as Linux-on-the-desktop is concerned, I'll be frank with you. It's a tough sell. All of our technicians actually use it as their primary or close secondary OS at work (and home) - Administratively, there is just so much you can do with it. That being said, putting it in the classrooms is a completely different situation. First, like I said earlier, there is the support issue. Yeah, I know, I just got finnished saying that we all run it ourselves. That's true, but 1) the helpdesk techs don't and 2) I may log in to Gnome or KDE and fire up a browser every now and then, but honestly, I mostly fire up a terminal window and go to town from there. If someone called me and asked why The Gimp kept crashing, I'd be hard pressed to come up with an immediate answer. With Photoshop on OS X or Win2K I can call tech support if I really get in a bind. What's more, it isn't just "our" fear of the unknown, end-users, when presented with an unfamiliar OS or interface are more likely to simply throw their hands up in exasperation then
Hey, don't hold back so much. Tell us how you really feel.
Did you forget to take those little pills this morning again?
BTW, if your going to spout hateful nonsense, at least have the balls to post as yourself. Posting garbage like this AC is a pethetic, cowardly thing to do.
Wait......don't tell me......you're French aren't you!
You can't copyright a concept - there are too many ways for people to come up with it independently. However, you can copyright a specific formula or algorithm as a means to an end. Companies who have invested time and money in perfecting these formulas should have the right to benefit from this.
BUT, IMHO, as soon as you try to make it a "standard" - thus forcing the world to use it, you should be required to make it royalty free and fully documented. There is a certain responsibility to the larger community for any organization or company that finds itself in this possition.
Information is too important to risk limiting its exchange. Case-in-point: M$ word documents. The "defacto standard" for document exchange is Microsoft's Office formats. However, the formats aren't fully documented and are at risk of changing with every new version of office. We would love to be able to ditch Office for an open-source (open format) solution, but we deal with other companies and government agencies who expect documents in Office format and send documents in Office format to us. It's a catch 22. We can't move to an open standard format without having a (redundant) system to be able to communicate with "the other 95%".
M$ has every right to sell their products. They have worked hard on them. However, because the formats have become the "standard", (and Microsoft has been doing everything it can to make it that way), M$ should be forced to open the format and fully document it, so that others don't have to reverse engineer it every time, to inter-operate. An open standard does not preclude MS from selling office. If it is the best product, it will sell. But an open standard for document exchange will allow true competition, and hence greater product improvement, by allowing software companies to compete on the technical merits of their products instead of on a closed format.
The same concept goes for audio and video. If you're going to call it a "standard" you shouldn't be able to charge for it. Charge for your product, not for the method of data exchange.
I see a BIG problem with this. Currently, I, as the mail administrator on my mail server can limit each user to X amount of mail storage. People who don't properly police their email will stop receiving email because they are over quota.
In the system you propose, I have potentially tons of mail on my system because someone else isn't checking their mail often enough. Does this mean that I just send a message to the sender saying that their email to "so-and-so" is too old and is being deleted?
Currently, I can send a message to someone, see it delivered (with a return receipt) and if they have room for it there, it will sit indefinitely until they check their mail. With your proposal a "busy" mail server may have very little room for the amount of mail storage necessary for sending due to the lag between sending the "header" and mail being checked. I suppose implementing a "send quota" might be an idea, but, again you are at the mercy of people who aren't checking their mail often enough - which may mean every few minutes if you have a small quota and send a lot of (or large) mail messages.
Also, what do you do about people who see the subject line, say "OH, I know what that's about" and delete it without ever retrieving the message? How long does the sending server sit on a dead message that will "never" be picked up?
Send quotas may be a way to stop spammers, but if I have, say a 10MB sent-mail limit and I have several emails with 2 or 3 MB attachments waiting to be picked up filling up my out-box, what can I do? Call them on the phone and say - "hey, pick up yer damn mail"? Kinda defeats the purpose of email.
I don't see any fool-proof way of avoiding spam. If I know your email address and want to send you something, I can do it. And as long as there are "free" email services where I can temporarily set up shop, spam 'till I drop and then move to another account without repercussion, you can't stop me short of running a manual whitelist-only system where only mail from people you're expecting mail from, and have listed as legit, will be accepted.
I administer a mail system that has several thousand users and processes a tremendous amount of mail daily. I have implemented spam control measures including blacklisting and heuristic scanning at the server level. dealing with spam takes an inordinate amount of my time, bandwidth and computing power. I'd love to blacklist every korean ip out there except that we have users who correspond with people in that part of the world.
I sure don't have any answers. I hate the thought of trying to legislate anything, because you can't. Korea won't give a crap if the USA says spam's illegal. What are we going to do?
Perhaps if there were a method of autogenerating server-wide mail rules where every message that arrived was tagged by the receiving server with a "Do you wish to block mail from this person?" link in it it might help. But then again spammers just use randomly generated addresses anyway. I don't have the answer, but I don't think this solution is it either. Interesting concept though.
BTW I am sitting in front of my G4 Dual 500 as we speak. My property taxes just went up $24,000.00 last week, just because I put a fresh coat of snow on my igloo! I got back at them though - I put their dogsleds up on blocks.
Don't mess with someone from North Pole, Alaska! I know Santa personally. If I really get irritated I'll arrange for you to get Windows XP in your stocking next year!
Slashdot Mirror
Using "Parent/Child" would indicate that a "parent" is exercising direct control over the "child". This will definitely not do. Children are unique, individual little people and must be free to choose their own path and discover their own inner potential!
If we are going to be PC we have to go all the way :-)
I say, refuse to sell them drives until the "whiner" is identified and held up to public ridicule. That goes for the bleeding-heart bureaucrat who took this whiner seriously instead of telling them to "grow-the-hell-up!"
I use Galeon you insensitive clod!
That being said, a good hacker can go a long way toward misleading an average forenzics expert.
But there is another issue here. If end users are called on to be responsible for securing their computers against attack (many of whom are still trying to figure out that "cup-holder" thingy), shouldn't the paid professionals responsible for the attacked system bear as much responsibility?
ACME Sysadmin: "Your computer hacked my system!".
Home User: "Not me! Someone must have hacked in and used it!"
ACME Sysadmin: "Not my problem, you are responsible for securing your internet connected computer."
Home User: "And you aren't? You get paid to know how to secure your stuff - I have to rely on Micrososft's word!"
Personally, I believe that with operating ANY equipment (car, gun, computer, can-opener, ...) the user must be responsible for it's (mis)use and should make a reasonable attempt at educating themselves in it's proper use.
But then, what's "reasonable"? Should the manufacturer of the "device" make the device "safe" by default? Or, if the device is deemed fundamentally "unsafe" by it's nature (cars, guns, computers...?) should a proficency test and a license be required to operate it?
I don't have the answers here. But as computers become more and more incorporated into every part of our lives, their irresponsible/mis-use will have graver consequences.
We are holding gun and auto-makers more and more responsible for what consumers are doing with their products and requiring safer-by-default specifications. Although it may seem a leap now to put conputers next to those items, it won't be long before their ubiquity will require enforced due dilligence on everyone's part.
How hard is it to implement
?I don't think it's a matter of open- or closed-source (although I'd feel better about it being open), but, my God!, how hard is it to take basic imput and tally it?
Aren't these companies bonded? If they are selling a voting system to the government and atesting to its accuracy, they should be fined BIG TIME if their quality control is so bad.
Give me a break. Complex programs are written and used all the time without this sort of cock-up (Banking industry, computerized slot machines, auto-pilot software). For a company to produce and sell [relatively] simple software like this and have the "glitches" they do borders on criminal negligence and stupidity!
Am I wrong in thinking that you could assign this project to a class of undergrads and have a tighter, more accurate system?
:-) Heh. What I was really saying was that I don't trust "my" U.S. government - but at least I can have a little control -- as would other citizens of [most] other countries. If there IS going to be control at all, it should be on a country-by-country basis over the resources within their reach - not by the U.N. where NONE of us will have ANY direct control.
For Peete's sake, get a clue (and a sense of humour)
Ummm... Doesn't SCO's OS have a PDF reader available?!
At home, I installed Panther. I have to say, for what I use virtual desktops for, Expose does even better! It is an AMAZING productivity tool!
I have 3 Monitors (a 22" flat-panel and 2 Dell 17") and often have Photoshop (with many images open), Safari, iTunes, iChatAV, several terminal windows, etc, etc open on various monitors, cluttering the desktop. I've re-mapped the middle mouse button (sorry, Apple NEEDS to come out with a 3-button scroll-wheel mouse) to "All Applications" Expose and I can instantly get to where I need to go while Still being able to see and monitor what is happening in my other apps.
With virtual desktops I am always having to switch back and forth to "check in on" the progress of, for instance downloads, compiling, etc. I use my other monitors for that and use Expose for "digging down" into the mass of windows on my 22" center monitor. I've yet to wish for virtual desktops since Panther. Just my opinion, but I'd have paid $129.00 for that alone now that I'm hooked.
This is rich!
@Stake is just the new name of l0pht Heavy Industries (remember l0phtcrack anyone?). Only now they've gotten used to feeding at the corporate trough. They used to be a lean, mean, usefull, security (through hacking) machine, albeit a bit on the grey side of the law. At least then you could count on what came out of them to be unfettered by corporate sponsorship!
I don't care if Microsoft phoned them up or not. Geer's report was simply common sense. So much so, that I'm suprised it got released as a "paper". Maybe I'll release a paper that proclaims "it is better to breathe fresh air than car exhaust". How can a position like Greer's paper be "expressing 'values and opinions [of the report] not in line with @stake's views."?
@Stake has forgotten it's independent, anti-establishment roots. They have lost all credibility, IMO. The link to Microsoft over the firing (whether MS actually picked up the phone or not) is as obvious as the point of the paper in question.
Maybe their ought to be a new company formed: Greer, Lamo and Assoc. I'd trust what they said when it comes to security over anything @Stake says now.
[/RANT]
I will go to the theater and see this movie. I will go because it is very well done, needs to be seen on the big screen, and I live in North Pole, Alaska and my dog sled is up on blocks at the moment.
I don't support Microsoft (ethically) either, yet I have OfficeMac loaded on my Mac because OOo doesn't open some spreadsheets properly for me and I have to be able to coexist with the rest of the world.
I will make use of the products offered by the MPAA and Microsoft when there are no alternatives. In the mean time I will do everything I can to support Indie/Open Source offerings at every oportunity.
BTW, I own the LOTR/Hobbit/Silmarilian books and have read them MANY times. As pleasurable as it is to curl up with a good book, I also like to take my family to the movies and enjoy the experience together.
Though I applaud your dedication to your "ethics", you remind me of the "professional protesters" I pass everday on the way to work (yes, I work. I have to support a family. I have to be able to afford movie tickets.) I see the same people out there protesting about anything and everything for months on end. You have to admire their fortitude - I'd never be able to afford that much time off work. I have to live in the real world. Where do you suppose they get their funding?
If it makes you feel any better, I grumble and complain loudly at paying $7.50 for a ticket. But it must be worth it, because I still pay it for two or three must see movies a year.
Oh, when bandwidth and compression technology are at the point where I can perhaps download a movie and play it at full digital quality on my 42" plasma TV - you may occasionally see me protesting the MPAA more directly. But, all things considered, I'd MUCH prefer to have a legal alternative - I've already proven that I'm willing to pay for it.
You actually READ the article?!? Man! You ARE a N00b!
One of the stumbling blocks I've run into in the past (I am no Samba guru) is dealing with the occasionally complex, nested groupings, permisions, and far more detailed ACLs than the ext2-3 filesystems provide. I know that there are some filesystems (and what? overlays?) that can be applied to ext3 which allow more than OWNER-GROUP-WORLD permissions.
How does this improved AD integration tie in with the various exended-ACL solutions?
I would LOVE to yank most or all of our windows fileservers and replace them with Linux boxes. The increased security and protection from viruses, etc. would be great. But with thousands of users in hundreds of departments in our domain(s) needing to access some of the same resources with different permissions - I've not found a satisfactory Linux solution.
Obviously, I'm missing something. But it would be great to have an out-of-the-box solution that takes the best of NTFS (for what it's worth) and the best of journaled Linux FSs to provide a truly stable, yet flexible fileserver.
Any /.'ers have a solution that's worked for them which you'd be willing to share?
Take a break from the 'shrooms, dude!
Google is great, but there is nothing like picking up a well-organized resource book, especially when tying other modules (like ACID, MySQL, etc.) into the mix. Besides, when you can see information in a single, coherent, organized form, you are able to get a much better feel for the big picture, instead of just the pieces of the puzzle as separate components.
And it never hurts to have a bookshelf packed with technical reference manuals behind your desk for then the PHBs walk in ;-)
You are assuming that it isn't a male stripper. I knew a very good stripper that worked at a printing shop. He was male. ;-)
I know, how quaint and old fashioned. But it is social conventions like this which help society remain civilized. There is such a thing as propriety. I'm not saying that you have to be a prude about it, but human nature, being what it is, is often best served by having some boundries to work within.
Just as with this brain-scan privacy issue. People are up in arms about it because of human nature. We fear that if it can be abused, it will be. And we also know that once the camel's nose is under the tent, it is very difficult to get it to back out.
You missed my point. I said that they should be treated differently when it relates to issues that are directly affected by their sexual orientation. To put it in the terms of your post: what if I made friends with someone who I thought was a heterosexual male. If I later found out "he" turned out to be a woman, I would be hurt at the deception, but would probably still retain their friendship (because, by definition, our relationship would have been platonic up to that point - I'm straight remember). However, our relationship would change - I would no longer change clothes in front of her or sleep in the same tent while camping, etc. That is not discrimination. Her gender has a direct relation and impact on those activities. And my wife would probably have a thing or two to say about it as well ;-)
On the other hand, military members of the same gender are in daily situations where there is no privacy. In bootcamp you have 80+ guys showering together. As a matter of personal preference, I would rather not have someone who is sexually attracted to me be allowed to watch me showering. You might say that it is harmless - "he's not going to touch you", but I say that's not the point. If it were, then let me shower with the female recruits. I promise I won't touch them, and they shouldn't mind that I'm watching, since I won't rape them?
Can I be a girl-scout leader? No. Why not? Can I join the WMBA or Ladies Soccer Team in their lockerroom while they are getting dressed? No. Why not? What makes homosexuals feel they have any more rights than I do in that respect?
I have firends and collegues who are homosexuals and I get along fine with them - but as far as my privacy is concerned they are a different gender. I won't ever discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference in the same way I won't discriminate against someone because they are a different race or gender. But I will take into consideration their sexual orientation when it comes to being in situations where I wouldn't expect a woman to be in with me.
Everyone loves to call people homophobic or gay-bashers because they don't want to swap spit with one. As far as I'm concerned, "alternate-lifestyle" people should be treated as if they were their own (third) gender and make judgements accordingly. That doesn't mean discriminate against them. Is it discrimination to not hire a fat hairy "man" to serve as a waitress in a topless bar (or hooters)? No. Is it descrimination to not hire a 400 lb woman to be a jockey? No. There are just some situations where you have to take into consideration the issues involved. When I have relatives over, I don't have their boys sleep in with my daughter in her bedroom or their girls sleep in with my son? Why not? Are they going to go at it like rabbits? - probably not. I just don't feel it is right.
There are people out there who are actively hostile toward homosexuals - I am not one of them and resent the implication that because I'm straight, I'm intollerant or closed-minded.
As to gays in the military - I'm all for it. But put them in their own barracks and have them bunk together - just like the women do. Either that, or make everybody the same and let me bunk with the women!
OK, let the flames begin...
About the "approved" software lists: It sounds like yours aren't kept up to date - which is a bad thing, but most likely they are only dusted off when "the management" needs to make a point or back it's position. That being said, they are there for several good reasons. They are intended to help agregate the functionality of software classes so that software that performs very similar tasks aren't duplicated (ie if you use MS Office, why buy WordPerfect too?, etc). Another reason is, quite simply, to make it easier on us :-) Most people don't know this, but IT and helpdesk staff aren't magically endowed with the ability to be instant experts is every piece of software ever written. Yet people will go out to Wall-Mart, buy a smartly packaged app, install it and call the helpdesk when they can't figure out how to use it or when it breaks somethig else on their system. We've never even heard of it before, do not have a copy to put up in front of us, yet we are supposed to solve their problem? The other day I had one of our accounting people call me to ask how to do something esoteric with MS Access. How the hell should I know? I use MySQL. So I fired up both google and Access and hit "help". Sure enough, I came up with the answer. But, geeze, give me a break! This happens all the time. Now you want to add a whole new operating system to the works? Like I said, the helpdesk technicians aren't going to just know how to troubleshoot it. And don't say "We won't call the helpdesk" - it always happens :-)
But, getting down the OSS issue. I am happy to anounce that I have been finally given approval to deploy OSS software as a "standard" at all of our 35+ locations. All new computers ordered (whether PC or Mac) will be delivered with Open Office! Those who find a specific function that it will not support which keeps them from doing their job, will be allowed to purchase MS Office (those with current licenses will be able to keep them until they need to upgrade).
In addition to this, we will be moving off Active Directory as our "primary" Directory Service and moving to OpenLDAP this summer (Active Directory will take it's queues from LDAP). Along with this change, we will be implementing an "Integrated Learning System" for managing student accounts, folders, hand-in/hand-out, attendance, etc. which will be developed in-house and be based on existing Open Source Software (I won't mention the name yet, because I have yet to get the blessing the authors about working\modding it to the extent we eventually want to). When it is completed, we plan on re-releasing our implementation back to the Open Source community. (we'd also like help from them ;-)
As far as Linux-on-the-desktop is concerned, I'll be frank with you. It's a tough sell. All of our technicians actually use it as their primary or close secondary OS at work (and home) - Administratively, there is just so much you can do with it. That being said, putting it in the classrooms is a completely different situation. First, like I said earlier, there is the support issue. Yeah, I know, I just got finnished saying that we all run it ourselves. That's true, but 1) the helpdesk techs don't and 2) I may log in to Gnome or KDE and fire up a browser every now and then, but honestly, I mostly fire up a terminal window and go to town from there. If someone called me and asked why The Gimp kept crashing, I'd be hard pressed to come up with an immediate answer. With Photoshop on OS X or Win2K I can call tech support if I really get in a bind. What's more, it isn't just "our" fear of the unknown, end-users, when presented with an unfamiliar OS or interface are more likely to simply throw their hands up in exasperation then
Did you forget to take those little pills this morning again?
BTW, if your going to spout hateful nonsense, at least have the balls to post as yourself. Posting garbage like this AC is a pethetic, cowardly thing to do.
Wait... ...don't tell me... ...you're French aren't you!
BUT, IMHO, as soon as you try to make it a "standard" - thus forcing the world to use it, you should be required to make it royalty free and fully documented. There is a certain responsibility to the larger community for any organization or company that finds itself in this possition.
Information is too important to risk limiting its exchange. Case-in-point: M$ word documents. The "defacto standard" for document exchange is Microsoft's Office formats. However, the formats aren't fully documented and are at risk of changing with every new version of office. We would love to be able to ditch Office for an open-source (open format) solution, but we deal with other companies and government agencies who expect documents in Office format and send documents in Office format to us. It's a catch 22. We can't move to an open standard format without having a (redundant) system to be able to communicate with "the other 95%".
M$ has every right to sell their products. They have worked hard on them. However, because the formats have become the "standard", (and Microsoft has been doing everything it can to make it that way), M$ should be forced to open the format and fully document it, so that others don't have to reverse engineer it every time, to inter-operate. An open standard does not preclude MS from selling office. If it is the best product, it will sell. But an open standard for document exchange will allow true competition, and hence greater product improvement, by allowing software companies to compete on the technical merits of their products instead of on a closed format.
The same concept goes for audio and video. If you're going to call it a "standard" you shouldn't be able to charge for it. Charge for your product, not for the method of data exchange.
My $.02
In the system you propose, I have potentially tons of mail on my system because someone else isn't checking their mail often enough. Does this mean that I just send a message to the sender saying that their email to "so-and-so" is too old and is being deleted?
Currently, I can send a message to someone, see it delivered (with a return receipt) and if they have room for it there, it will sit indefinitely until they check their mail. With your proposal a "busy" mail server may have very little room for the amount of mail storage necessary for sending due to the lag between sending the "header" and mail being checked. I suppose implementing a "send quota" might be an idea, but, again you are at the mercy of people who aren't checking their mail often enough - which may mean every few minutes if you have a small quota and send a lot of (or large) mail messages.
Also, what do you do about people who see the subject line, say "OH, I know what that's about" and delete it without ever retrieving the message? How long does the sending server sit on a dead message that will "never" be picked up?
Send quotas may be a way to stop spammers, but if I have, say a 10MB sent-mail limit and I have several emails with 2 or 3 MB attachments waiting to be picked up filling up my out-box, what can I do? Call them on the phone and say - "hey, pick up yer damn mail"? Kinda defeats the purpose of email.
I don't see any fool-proof way of avoiding spam. If I know your email address and want to send you something, I can do it. And as long as there are "free" email services where I can temporarily set up shop, spam 'till I drop and then move to another account without repercussion, you can't stop me short of running a manual whitelist-only system where only mail from people you're expecting mail from, and have listed as legit, will be accepted.
I administer a mail system that has several thousand users and processes a tremendous amount of mail daily. I have implemented spam control measures including blacklisting and heuristic scanning at the server level. dealing with spam takes an inordinate amount of my time, bandwidth and computing power. I'd love to blacklist every korean ip out there except that we have users who correspond with people in that part of the world.
I sure don't have any answers. I hate the thought of trying to legislate anything, because you can't. Korea won't give a crap if the USA says spam's illegal. What are we going to do?
Perhaps if there were a method of autogenerating server-wide mail rules where every message that arrived was tagged by the receiving server with a "Do you wish to block mail from this person?" link in it it might help. But then again spammers just use randomly generated addresses anyway. I don't have the answer, but I don't think this solution is it either. Interesting concept though.
BTW I am sitting in front of my G4 Dual 500 as we speak. My property taxes just went up $24,000.00 last week, just because I put a fresh coat of snow on my igloo! I got back at them though - I put their dogsleds up on blocks.
Don't mess with someone from North Pole, Alaska! I know Santa personally. If I really get irritated I'll arrange for you to get Windows XP in your stocking next year!
http://www.thehenevelds.com