Yeah I do. It is like I use the Web a lot. Think SlashDot, think Del.Ic.iosus..whateva think whatever little forum or not so important web service. I do store the password in browser. What else do you suggest? Remembering 100+ different passwords maybe is possible for me but I've got better things to do.:)
I use quite common scheme - I don't care about remembering my passwords at all if they are related to not so critical things like my Slashdot account, Bugzilla account for project Foo etc. etc. - I generate random passwords for these accounts and let my browser remember it.
For more critical stuff I use keys/keychain (like remote login to servers) or I have few passwords that I really remember (bank account, eBay etc.).
The article itself does not say nothing. It is quite possible that such migration does not make any sense. If they have loads of Windows-only applications they would have to rewrite it all to web frontends or something. Also tech support and administration can be quite costly if they have no unix background.
But on the other hand the outcome of this case does not provide any specific information where they failed? Was it lack of apps? What distro they used? What strategy? What were main problems? Etc.? Etc.?
For this money to be not completely thrown into trash they should publish the outcome and what they have experienced. For others to learn but also for general public to justify themselves. Right now it is like big question mark on what exactly they did. And this leaves their incompetency as an option too.
NP I was ironising a bit.;) Thanks for hints but I do have all updates installed and my router (I belive) is fairly standard (Linksys WAG200).
Anyway my point was that things like this should not happen.:\ The described "Mac Way" is nothing special and in fact all stuff should "Just Work". But unfortunately I ran across things not working (from no apparent reason) in all systems that I use.
First of all you didn't get me right. I didn't want to get into this Windows vs. OSX vs. Linux argument. I just reffered to Linux and Windows working with network to state that the network itself is working so it is not a flaw at network side but on OSX. So please don't go into this "in Windows" argument.
Basically my point is that right now, sadly every platform sucks in some way. And OSX/Mac is not different. It is better in some situations but worse at other. So this "Mac Way" BS is just well... BS.
As for other points why do you think SMB sucks? It is quite good actually. It is cross platform and works quite well. What you suggest that is better than SMB and why exactly? And what is the connection between that OSX cant mount it manually to quality of protocol anyway?
> WPA2 is supported, run the latest airport updates.
I am sorry that you consider me as some kind of idiot. Do you think that I would do stuff that is not described as supported? I know God damn well that it is supported. It is just that it does not work for me here.
> Your problems reflect a lack of knowledge in > making these features work.
Yeah right. Obvious bugs made by Apple are result of my lack of knowledge.:)))
> I do this for a living. Want SMB volumes to mount on startup? > If you're working in a Microsoft Active Directory network, > make your Mac a member of the domain for single-sign-on authentication > and many other features.
Oh so if I want such simple feature as automated mounting of volumes I need to carry another laptop with Domain Controller with me? Nice. This is the "Mac Way" Apple fanboys are reffering to? And what with NFS?
> Not all tools are perfect (the Finder does have problems sometimes), > but to blame the tool because the building won't go up, well, that's > just uncool.
Yeah. That is uncool to point at obvious flaws and expect the vendor to fix it. Mac Way again?
> There is nothing you haven't mentioned that hasn't a resolution > that requires you to spend a lot of time on it. Tired of using > the GUI? Go around it; this is a BSD after all. It'll likely work.
Oh you reminded me about another stupid decision made by Apple.:) This is BSD but uses (by default, can be fixed by using different volume type, mind you before you knock yourself out at this one) case-insensitive FS. I've ran on it once when I've problems with compiling some stuff (it used two different files like "File" and "file") which took me few hours before I've realised what Apple did and banged my head against the keyboard.
Re:the silent mac minority
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Not to flame you but this is complete bullshit. Like OSX/Mac does not have flaws? It has gazilions of flaws. I use it on daily basis and I am going frustrated about this with mind that I've spent significant amount of money just to not have such stupid flaws.
> On a Mac, this would have been simple, easy, intuitive. (...) > So the "Mac user experience" is about how not to waste time.
Lets go on with Mac:
1. I use BlueTooth on daily basis to sync my phone with Mac. One day the BT just stopped working with dialog "It does not work". Easy, intuitive.
2. My Mac can't connect to WPA2 protected wifi network. Windows machines (my friend's mind you) and Linux (my ThinkPad laptop) have no problems with my Linksys router. Mac will just say "Cannot connect to {foo} network" just this. Easy, intuitive, simple.
3. I find it annoying that once in a time some update causes other things to stop work. Especially when you run more complicated setup than just ussing crappy iLife and iChat. And then comming after the stupid flaw and banging my head against keyboard thinking about what stupid decission Apple made this time is time saving really. And easy too!
4. Finder is full of annoying bugs. F.e. once in a time (I recall I encounter it at least few times a week) some window just can't be minimized or maximised. The buttons for minimise/maximise don't work till Finder restart.
5. Another annoyung Finder bug is that when I copy a folder from other computer (via NFS or when you unpack archive) to my Mac often it is marked as empty dir (but It is not empty!) and I cannot access it contents (it displays empty in Finder). When I open Terminal.app and do ls on that folder magically it is then not empty for Finder. Intuitive, easy, time saving.
6. There is no way to have NFS or SMB share mounted on system startup (nor login) in a way that is visible from Finder. You can do manual mount with mount command or/etc/fstab but then it is not visible via Finder (in sidebar, on desktop). So each time I login I need to mount my shares MANUALLY. Time saving, compared to Linux autofs feature.:)
7. Oh and mounting NFS share with Finder is retarded since it mounts NFS share with the most retarded options you can imagine. So when netwok goes down (oh did I mention that this Mac sometimes looses wifi connection with no explanation?) all programs (including the Finder) freeze. Easy.
So please "Apple way" my ass. I am sad to said that as for now EVERY operating system (be it OSX, Linux, Windows etc.) sucks in some way. Really.:\
> If Apple's hardware is so fantastic, why do they feel > that the only way they can compete is by forcing people > to use it?
Because OSX is only good on Apple hardware? By opening it to standard PCs they loose the advantage of developing operating system designed (tested, supported) for specific hardware parts.
I hate Windows and use OSX and freenixes only. But I have to admit that lots of "Windows problems" are related to the fact, that it is intended to (try to) run on any obscure piece of hardware while OSX is intended to run well only on specific Apple subset.
Well I need AV. I don't really belive in AV active/shields and so on. But I do need AV program to run it AFTER some clueless users do something stupid to clean their machines.
> I suppose if you're dumb enough to think you > need an Antivirus program, you probably do.
I suppose people who need AV programs are just not computer literates and run Windows;). But that does not make them dumb. With your logic you are dumb. Because when you are for example sick you need to go to the doctor. Too dumb to manage it yourself? You are dumb then?
No.
It is just that people vary in what they are good in. Welcome to reality.
About 90/92 (I don't recall exactly) in Poland there was no strict software piracy laws and enforcement. Polish software market was very new (comunism just ended in 89) so basically it was very hard to get anything legal. So you pirated and it was perfectly OK (there were no alternative distribution).
I remember that few computer shops put out public computers to attract customers. These computers worked like this - you wen't to the shop with few floppies and copied games/software (mostly games) from and into these computers. These computers were by far the most virused computers I've seen.:) Keep in mind that these were DISK viruses that spreaded trough floppies.
To encrypt entire disk it is a stupid idea. Few points:
- Performance - encrypting everything (cache, program files and so on) is a serious hit on performance, now you can say that hardware/performance it is not a problem. But don't say it to me when I see brand new laptop booting long time since you can login and launching MS Office in *few* seconds.
- Anyway why encrypt everything when it is the data (and not all of it) that you want to encrypt?
- Hassle - I mean when it is an option to just tick "encrypt my harddrive" checkbox it is paradoxically way to easy. You can imagine every clueless marketing staff member just ticking it to encrypt their worthless data. It is good that hard encryption is bit "hard" (like you need to provide a password and a key and have a clue what is going on) so people will use it only when they need it, so they will probably remember their passwords.
My boss asked me for this feature. I've just installed TrueCrypt for this. Told him to click on this icon and *remember* his password (probably he wrote it down and locked in a safe - perfectly normal and wise) so he can get his "special safe disk" for his important documents.
> Developers can do 2-D, 3-D, animation, imaging, > video, audio, special effects and text rendering > using a single API.
And when exactly they will learn that UI design it is not about what YOU CAN DO? It is what YOU CAN'T DO. You can take any program and DO WITH IT WHATEVER, give it nice animations, nice 3D effects, symphonic sounds, add to it few agents, fifteen toolbars, make it do your coffee etc.
It is not what you CAN do. It so about how to make it the most simple as you can. KISS - for Keep It Simple.
Reffered in the article OSX is a quite complicated operating system but still it manages to deliver a platform on which (at least in my opinion, and I am not biased since my main workstation is running Linux) you can make SIMPLE and USEFULL applications.
My point is that the platform should allow users to get consistant and simple interface. Not that what Windows is offering - now you get it even more complex - you get all Windows Legacy stuff working (dating back to 95) and also a BRAND NEW SHINY 2D 3D WHATEVER interface. So it is in fact worse not better. Since it includes more ways to screw the applications to become UNNEEDLY COMPLEX.
From TFA: "It is also trivial to exploit this vulnerability as a DoS by causing an existing X client program (such as Firefox) to render a long text string. It may be possible to use Flash movies, Java applets, or embedded web fonts to supply the custom glyph data necessary for reliable remote code execution."
So it may be possible for website to gain root privileges on your system only by you visiting, a website with some Flash animation. Zero impact? If this exploit would have be on Windows systems that have more than peanuts market share it will be like viri armageddon right now. It has HUGE impact.
The fact is that nobody uses Linux/BSD/X11 for personal desktop stuff (like 1% maybe) so it has no impact in that sense yes. In sense of importance of this hole it is huge.
Maybe this is a conspiracy theory but hey - this is possible so why not mention it.
Could it be that MS is hoping that some of users that aquired MS Windows legaly (as MS likes to speak - genuine) will see this warning and go buy MS Windows *again*. This could boost like 1% of sales - but it is still something in their scale.
On the other hand I administer few dozens of Windows boxes, they get all the patches (including WGA "patch") and none of these reported as non-genuine. And these are not all the same - some used boxes, some new from different vendors, some self-built, few on VMWare and so on. So I personally cannot share the "42%" experience.
But after all this MS Windows activation/codes/stickers/WGA - and so on - bullshit is only getting on my nerves. In my country what makes software copies legal is the license (which can force the way of use (commercial/home) but not something such stupid as stickers) and proof of legal buing. Not some stupid shit that is actually more pain in the ass for legitimate users than is for pirates.
I always tought that top-notch Linux developers use nice hardware. TP 600 is a nice machnie but it is way old. It is like 400Mhz P2 processor? I actually owned one... like 4 years ago.
Why he wasn't using some nice TP T60p or something like that?
Well since you are doing more than you should you can either stop doing what you don't like to do and only focus on your duties. Or do more but get paid for more. But I think you can get tired of doing too much. After all if you are working 9~17 you want to go out at 17, go home to your wife or girlfriend, have a life. That is perfectly normal. If your management is overloading you with work that is management not yours problem. The problem is it is either badly managed or they lack staff. But none of these are your problems really.
I used to face similar problems and I was dissatisfied with it. Now I document *evertyhing* I do - any single task I write it on my Palm and then load it to archive - I have actually proof of what exactly I am doing an when. If somebody want's me to do something more I do it (if I have time) or state that I don't have time on that and I need to stop doing something else to start doing their task. This is great way to show the management that they should actually manage, since you are for making stuff/tasks, not for managing.:)
So let me get this clear. Somebody is willing to charge for the ability to automagically (like using tools/algorithyms) read the content that is otherwise freely aviable?
Like f.e. I have a website where I display something and I tell:
1. You can use my website. 2. You cannot run web crawlers over it.
???
It does not make any sense at all. If you want your content to be paid and protected use well established facility like, you know, user authorization. Make the users login with their own well paid username/password to access content. This way no crawler will access it because it does not know the freaking password. Now if some legitimate users run crawlers (or it would seem like) on your site you can block them - it is your own content and you can block whoever you wish (just make sure it is in terms of usage).
So basically somebody wants to get money. He wants his content to be public (if he doesn't he should lock it) but also he wants somebody to pay him for indexing of his content.
So well first we have a web browser with well established history of being crappy and insecure. Thousands of exploits, hundreds of successful global scale exploits attacking Microsoft Internet Explorer. Product well known to be one of least secure of probably all of software products. The king of insecurity - MSIE (with Windows underneath - but you can't have it otherwise, consider MSIE for Mac dead).
Secondly we have some closed source software called cPanel. An ugly hack on system administration, you know the one that gives you root-like privileges over WWW. I don't know cPanel record of security but I don't care really - closed source, and unusefull (to me) stuff.
So you are using MSIE and clicking in some web frontend to administer other system. And you thought it was secure? Why?
> What happens after this guy snd his buddies > fade out of the picture?
Perhaps the same thing as would happen if the guys setting up a client network made of Windows 95 will fade out. Och or maybe not - Linux is still supported and there are loads of Linux admins out there. So well you hire new one.
> The first question I would ask is what are the > chances the school board will support a duct-taped > Linux solution for this one school?
From the question I assume that any solution using used computers from Windows 95 era will be duct taped. The difference is that the Linux solution can work - I can't imagine Windows 95 clients used by some kids to last more than few hours.
Ergo: of course it will be duct-taped. Well you can go buy 100 eMacs and start normal network. But I guess money is problem here (so they are using used PCs).
These machines (from Windows 95 era) are far too weak to run decent desktop Linux. In fact they will run windowing system and graphical mode fine, but when it comes down to applications it will be *VERY* painly to run Firefox or OpenOffice.org on them.
Instead you can turn the old machines into thin clients. So they will serve only as an display and input to applications that will be run on more powerfull server. You need to set up a fairly capable server (the ammount of RAM matters) - dual P3 with 1GB RAM and decent big disks will do for a handful of clients. The clients can boot of minidistribution installed on them locally, from live CD or via network (netboot). Network option will be probably best but not all systems (meaning PCs) will support it.
This way all the old machines will do is connect to that server and display appliations run on the server. When one such thin client breaks (the old machines *WILL* break often) you just replace it with another one and it is basically it. Also management of such system is much simpler than managing network of Windows 95 - all apps and all user data is on the server, so you have only one place to look after, only one place to manage software, only one place to backup etc.
Thera are also few ways for managing terminal server/client network, one most well known solution is the Linux Terminal Server Project - have a look at their documentation, it is fairly complete: http://www.ltsp.org/ http://www.ltsp.org/documentation/index.php
Also if you are looking for help seek your local Linux community. Linux servers are extremely easy to manage remotely so you can probably find some kind admins/gurus that will want to help you pro bono.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah I do. It is like I use the Web a lot. Think SlashDot, think Del.Ic.iosus..whateva think whatever little forum or not so important web service. I do store the password in browser. What else do you suggest? Remembering 100+ different passwords maybe is possible for me but I've got better things to do. :)
I use quite common scheme - I don't care about remembering my passwords at all if they are related to not so critical things like my Slashdot account, Bugzilla account for project Foo etc. etc. - I generate random passwords for these accounts and let my browser remember it.
For more critical stuff I use keys/keychain (like remote login to servers) or I have few passwords that I really remember (bank account, eBay etc.).
Isn't it like all people do?
How often do you change videocard or CPU in your laptop?
Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it. -- Linus Torvalds
The article itself does not say nothing. It is quite possible that such migration does not make any sense. If they have loads of Windows-only applications they would have to rewrite it all to web frontends or something. Also tech support and administration can be quite costly if they have no unix background.
But on the other hand the outcome of this case does not provide any specific information where they failed? Was it lack of apps? What distro they used? What strategy? What were main problems? Etc.? Etc.?
For this money to be not completely thrown into trash they should publish the outcome and what they have experienced. For others to learn but also for general public to justify themselves. Right now it is like big question mark on what exactly they did. And this leaves their incompetency as an option too.
> Sorry I caused offence - I didn't mean to.
;) Thanks for hints but I do have all updates installed and my router (I belive) is fairly standard (Linksys WAG200).
:\ The described "Mac Way" is nothing special and in fact all stuff should "Just Work". But unfortunately I ran across things not working (from no apparent reason) in all systems that I use.
NP I was ironising a bit.
Anyway my point was that things like this should not happen.
First of all you didn't get me right. I didn't want to get into this Windows vs. OSX vs. Linux argument. I just reffered to Linux and Windows working with network to state that the network itself is working so it is not a flaw at network side but on OSX. So please don't go into this "in Windows" argument.
Basically my point is that right now, sadly every platform sucks in some way. And OSX/Mac is not different. It is better in some situations but worse at other. So this "Mac Way" BS is just well... BS.
As for other points why do you think SMB sucks? It is quite good actually. It is cross platform and works quite well. What you suggest that is better than SMB and why exactly? And what is the connection between that OSX cant mount it manually to quality of protocol anyway?
> That isn't true.
Well so come on in here and check for yourself
> WPA2 is supported, run the latest airport updates.
I am sorry that you consider me as some kind of idiot. Do you think that I would do stuff that is not described as supported? I know God damn well that it is supported. It is just that it does not work for me here.
> Your problems reflect a lack of knowledge in
:)))
:) This is BSD but uses (by default, can be fixed by using different volume type, mind you before you knock yourself out at this one) case-insensitive FS. I've ran on it once when I've problems with compiling some stuff (it used two different files like "File" and "file") which took me few hours before I've realised what Apple did and banged my head against the keyboard.
> making these features work.
Yeah right. Obvious bugs made by Apple are result of my lack of knowledge.
> I do this for a living. Want SMB volumes to mount on startup?
> If you're working in a Microsoft Active Directory network,
> make your Mac a member of the domain for single-sign-on authentication
> and many other features.
Oh so if I want such simple feature as automated mounting of volumes I need to carry another laptop with Domain Controller with me? Nice. This is the "Mac Way" Apple fanboys are reffering to? And what with NFS?
> Not all tools are perfect (the Finder does have problems sometimes),
> but to blame the tool because the building won't go up, well, that's
> just uncool.
Yeah. That is uncool to point at obvious flaws and expect the vendor to fix it. Mac Way again?
> There is nothing you haven't mentioned that hasn't a resolution
> that requires you to spend a lot of time on it. Tired of using
> the GUI? Go around it; this is a BSD after all. It'll likely work.
Oh you reminded me about another stupid decision made by Apple.
Not to flame you but this is complete bullshit. Like OSX/Mac does not have flaws? It has gazilions of flaws. I use it on daily basis and I am going frustrated about this with mind that I've spent significant amount of money just to not have such stupid flaws.
/etc/fstab but then it is not visible via Finder (in sidebar, on desktop). So each time I login I need to mount my shares MANUALLY. Time saving, compared to Linux autofs feature. :)
:\
> On a Mac, this would have been simple, easy, intuitive. (...)
> So the "Mac user experience" is about how not to waste time.
Lets go on with Mac:
1. I use BlueTooth on daily basis to sync my phone with Mac. One day the BT just stopped working with dialog "It does not work". Easy, intuitive.
2. My Mac can't connect to WPA2 protected wifi network. Windows machines (my friend's mind you) and Linux (my ThinkPad laptop) have no problems with my Linksys router. Mac will just say "Cannot connect to {foo} network" just this. Easy, intuitive, simple.
3. I find it annoying that once in a time some update causes other things to stop work. Especially when you run more complicated setup than just ussing crappy iLife and iChat. And then comming after the stupid flaw and banging my head against keyboard thinking about what stupid decission Apple made this time is time saving really. And easy too!
4. Finder is full of annoying bugs. F.e. once in a time (I recall I encounter it at least few times a week) some window just can't be minimized or maximised. The buttons for minimise/maximise don't work till Finder restart.
5. Another annoyung Finder bug is that when I copy a folder from other computer (via NFS or when you unpack archive) to my Mac often it is marked as empty dir (but It is not empty!) and I cannot access it contents (it displays empty in Finder). When I open Terminal.app and do ls on that folder magically it is then not empty for Finder. Intuitive, easy, time saving.
6. There is no way to have NFS or SMB share mounted on system startup (nor login) in a way that is visible from Finder. You can do manual mount with mount command or
7. Oh and mounting NFS share with Finder is retarded since it mounts NFS share with the most retarded options you can imagine. So when netwok goes down (oh did I mention that this Mac sometimes looses wifi connection with no explanation?) all programs (including the Finder) freeze. Easy.
So please "Apple way" my ass. I am sad to said that as for now EVERY operating system (be it OSX, Linux, Windows etc.) sucks in some way. Really.
> If Apple's hardware is so fantastic, why do they feel
> that the only way they can compete is by forcing people
> to use it?
Because OSX is only good on Apple hardware? By opening it to standard PCs they loose the advantage of developing operating system designed (tested, supported) for specific hardware parts.
I hate Windows and use OSX and freenixes only. But I have to admit that lots of "Windows problems" are related to the fact, that it is intended to (try to) run on any obscure piece of hardware while OSX is intended to run well only on specific Apple subset.
Well I need AV. I don't really belive in AV active/shields and so on. But I do need AV program to run it AFTER some clueless users do something stupid to clean their machines.
;). But that does not make them dumb. With your logic you are dumb. Because when you are for example sick you need to go to the doctor. Too dumb to manage it yourself? You are dumb then?
> I suppose if you're dumb enough to think you
> need an Antivirus program, you probably do.
I suppose people who need AV programs are just not computer literates and run Windows
No.
It is just that people vary in what they are good in. Welcome to reality.
About 90/92 (I don't recall exactly) in Poland there was no strict software piracy laws and enforcement. Polish software market was very new (comunism just ended in 89) so basically it was very hard to get anything legal. So you pirated and it was perfectly OK (there were no alternative distribution).
:) Keep in mind that these were DISK viruses that spreaded trough floppies.
I remember that few computer shops put out public computers to attract customers. These computers worked like this - you wen't to the shop with few floppies and copied games/software (mostly games) from and into these computers. These computers were by far the most virused computers I've seen.
SPAM? I don't get any recently. Really. No SPAM. I don't know maybe filters got better.
What was the measure of this increased volumes of SPAM? Judging from filter logs or what?
To encrypt entire disk it is a stupid idea. Few points:
- Performance - encrypting everything (cache, program files and so on) is a serious hit on performance, now you can say that hardware/performance it is not a problem. But don't say it to me when I see brand new laptop booting long time since you can login and launching MS Office in *few* seconds.
- Anyway why encrypt everything when it is the data (and not all of it) that you want to encrypt?
- Hassle - I mean when it is an option to just tick "encrypt my harddrive" checkbox it is paradoxically way to easy. You can imagine every clueless marketing staff member just ticking it to encrypt their worthless data. It is good that hard encryption is bit "hard" (like you need to provide a password and a key and have a clue what is going on) so people will use it only when they need it, so they will probably remember their passwords.
My boss asked me for this feature. I've just installed TrueCrypt for this. Told him to click on this icon and *remember* his password (probably he wrote it down and locked in a safe - perfectly normal and wise) so he can get his "special safe disk" for his important documents.
> Developers can do 2-D, 3-D, animation, imaging,
> video, audio, special effects and text rendering
> using a single API.
And when exactly they will learn that UI design it is not about what YOU CAN DO? It is what YOU CAN'T DO. You can take any program and DO WITH IT WHATEVER, give it nice animations, nice 3D effects, symphonic sounds, add to it few agents, fifteen toolbars, make it do your coffee etc.
It is not what you CAN do. It so about how to make it the most simple as you can. KISS - for Keep It Simple.
Reffered in the article OSX is a quite complicated operating system but still it manages to deliver a platform on which (at least in my opinion, and I am not biased since my main workstation is running Linux) you can make SIMPLE and USEFULL applications.
My point is that the platform should allow users to get consistant and simple interface. Not that what Windows is offering - now you get it even more complex - you get all Windows Legacy stuff working (dating back to 95) and also a BRAND NEW SHINY 2D 3D WHATEVER interface. So it is in fact worse not better. Since it includes more ways to screw the applications to become UNNEEDLY COMPLEX.
> So my guess: zero impact!
From TFA: "It is also trivial to exploit this vulnerability as a DoS by causing an existing X client program (such as Firefox) to render a long text string. It may be possible to use Flash movies, Java applets, or embedded web fonts to supply the custom glyph data necessary for reliable remote code execution."
So it may be possible for website to gain root privileges on your system only by you visiting, a website with some Flash animation. Zero impact? If this exploit would have be on Windows systems that have more than peanuts market share it will be like viri armageddon right now. It has HUGE impact.
The fact is that nobody uses Linux/BSD/X11 for personal desktop stuff (like 1% maybe) so it has no impact in that sense yes. In sense of importance of this hole it is huge.
How about some plain-old-text displayed using fixed size font?
Yeah I *love* Linksys routers. Especially the few that pop up in my PDA using "linksys" ESSID without any access restrictions. ;)
Maybe this is a conspiracy theory but hey - this is possible so why not mention it.
Could it be that MS is hoping that some of users that aquired MS Windows legaly (as MS likes to speak - genuine) will see this warning and go buy MS Windows *again*. This could boost like 1% of sales - but it is still something in their scale.
On the other hand I administer few dozens of Windows boxes, they get all the patches (including WGA "patch") and none of these reported as non-genuine. And these are not all the same - some used boxes, some new from different vendors, some self-built, few on VMWare and so on. So I personally cannot share the "42%" experience.
But after all this MS Windows activation/codes/stickers/WGA - and so on - bullshit is only getting on my nerves. In my country what makes software copies legal is the license (which can force the way of use (commercial/home) but not something such stupid as stickers) and proof of legal buing. Not some stupid shit that is actually more pain in the ass for legitimate users than is for pirates.
I always tought that top-notch Linux developers use nice hardware. TP 600 is a nice machnie but it is way old. It is like 400Mhz P2 processor? I actually owned one... like 4 years ago.
Why he wasn't using some nice TP T60p or something like that?
Well since you are doing more than you should you can either stop doing what you don't like to do and only focus on your duties. Or do more but get paid for more. But I think you can get tired of doing too much. After all if you are working 9~17 you want to go out at 17, go home to your wife or girlfriend, have a life. That is perfectly normal. If your management is overloading you with work that is management not yours problem. The problem is it is either badly managed or they lack staff. But none of these are your problems really.
:)
I used to face similar problems and I was dissatisfied with it. Now I document *evertyhing* I do - any single task I write it on my Palm and then load it to archive - I have actually proof of what exactly I am doing an when. If somebody want's me to do something more I do it (if I have time) or state that I don't have time on that and I need to stop doing something else to start doing their task. This is great way to show the management that they should actually manage, since you are for making stuff/tasks, not for managing.
So let me get this clear. Somebody is willing to charge for the ability to automagically (like using tools/algorithyms) read the content that is otherwise freely aviable?
Like f.e. I have a website where I display something and I tell:
1. You can use my website.
2. You cannot run web crawlers over it.
???
It does not make any sense at all. If you want your content to be paid and protected use well established facility like, you know, user authorization. Make the users login with their own well paid username/password to access content. This way no crawler will access it because it does not know the freaking password. Now if some legitimate users run crawlers (or it would seem like) on your site you can block them - it is your own content and you can block whoever you wish (just make sure it is in terms of usage).
So basically somebody wants to get money. He wants his content to be public (if he doesn't he should lock it) but also he wants somebody to pay him for indexing of his content.
Waaaayyy stupid.
So well first we have a web browser with well established history of being crappy and insecure. Thousands of exploits, hundreds of successful global scale exploits attacking Microsoft Internet Explorer. Product well known to be one of least secure of probably all of software products. The king of insecurity - MSIE (with Windows underneath - but you can't have it otherwise, consider MSIE for Mac dead).
Secondly we have some closed source software called cPanel. An ugly hack on system administration, you know the one that gives you root-like privileges over WWW. I don't know cPanel record of security but I don't care really - closed source, and unusefull (to me) stuff.
So you are using MSIE and clicking in some web frontend to administer other system. And you thought it was secure? Why?
> What happens after this guy snd his buddies
> fade out of the picture?
Perhaps the same thing as would happen if the guys setting up a client network made of Windows 95 will fade out. Och or maybe not - Linux is still supported and there are loads of Linux admins out there. So well you hire new one.
> The first question I would ask is what are the
> chances the school board will support a duct-taped
> Linux solution for this one school?
From the question I assume that any solution using used computers from Windows 95 era will be duct taped. The difference is that the Linux solution can work - I can't imagine Windows 95 clients used by some kids to last more than few hours.
Ergo: of course it will be duct-taped. Well you can go buy 100 eMacs and start normal network. But I guess money is problem here (so they are using used PCs).
These machines (from Windows 95 era) are far too weak to run decent desktop Linux. In fact they will run windowing system and graphical mode fine, but when it comes down to applications it will be *VERY* painly to run Firefox or OpenOffice.org on them.
:)
Instead you can turn the old machines into thin clients. So they will serve only as an display and input to applications that will be run on more powerfull server. You need to set up a fairly capable server (the ammount of RAM matters) - dual P3 with 1GB RAM and decent big disks will do for a handful of clients. The clients can boot of minidistribution installed on them locally, from live CD or via network (netboot). Network option will be probably best but not all systems (meaning PCs) will support it.
This way all the old machines will do is connect to that server and display appliations run on the server. When one such thin client breaks (the old machines *WILL* break often) you just replace it with another one and it is basically it. Also management of such system is much simpler than managing network of Windows 95 - all apps and all user data is on the server, so you have only one place to look after, only one place to manage software, only one place to backup etc.
There are various Linux distributions build for education. F.e. I would take Edubuntu for a spin (for starters):
http://www.edubuntu.org/
http://www.edubuntu.org/Screenshots (these speak for themselves)
Thera are also few ways for managing terminal server/client network, one most well known solution is the Linux Terminal Server Project - have a look at their documentation, it is fairly complete:
http://www.ltsp.org/
http://www.ltsp.org/documentation/index.php
Also if you are looking for help seek your local Linux community. Linux servers are extremely easy to manage remotely so you can probably find some kind admins/gurus that will want to help you pro bono.
Good Luck.