Hrm, xl would likely make it a 3com of some sort. I've had the same issues with the panic/reboot under heavy load on 4.8 as well. None of the 4.9RCs have had this issues as of yet. Happy happy joy joy!
Wow. That's a lot to think about. I don't agree with you about where to place blame for mishaps (Microsoft or end users), but from what I've seen so far about Palladium and other new technologies coming forth, it does seem possible that this is the direction Microsoft has chosen. Given the free nature of the Interweb, I wonder if they'll even come close to achieving this goal, should they choose to pursue it. It may not be technically possible for one company to control that much. If we can't even get rid of spam, I honestly doubt any one company could position themselves as a "utility".
Let me give you a hypothetical situation: You buy a brand new car. After owning the car for a few months the manufacturer discovers a flaw in the security system that causes the car to arbitrarily become unlocked and the engine to start. The manufacturer putzes around with this knowledge for a few months and eventually releases a recall notice on their website offering a free repair. Being an average driver with no real inclination to ever ascend to the elite "power driver" status, you never check the website because you are either unaware of it or simply don't care because you're more concerned with driving the car as opposed to maintaining it. Isn't that what you pay mechanics for? One day while you are out doing some bland, mundane task the vulnerability kicks in and unlocks and starts your car while it's parked in the parking lot of some retail outlet. Someone walking by takes advantage of the situation and steals your car. Would you want to take the blame for this? Average users con't give a shit about security or anything else. They just want to use their computers.
Personally, I'm glad this sort of thing is happening. If it didn't, it would mean Microsoft was highly secure and it would not be possible for one to hijack their operating system so easily. Because of security issues such as this, Microsoft is making the inevitable exodus from their platform that much easier. I pray for more issues such as this. The more we have, the sooner Microsoft will fade from the scene.
Actually, I thought they did. In all the big press cases in the last couple of years a patch has always been available for quite some time before the exploit became public. Think Code Red, Slammer, Blaster, etc. Microsoft does keep it's code pretty solid and secure. Unfortunately there are a lot of paper MCSEs and other unqualified people proclaiming to be administrators out there who wouldn't know how to secure a system if BillG was standing in the room with them telling them how to do it. Microsoft gets a bad rap because of this, but I think there will come a time when all of the OSS communities' huffing and puffing about how insecure MS is and how secure their distro of UberNix 12.x is will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. Business Development departments do pay attention to this sort of stuff, and if they ever get the sense that MS and *nix are pretty much on even ground (which they are. I've played with both for years and I can't really see any differences) They'll opt for MS every time because it's familiar and proven. All bias remarks aside, it really is.
Hmm... The only Windows box I have directly attached to the Interweb is a honeypot, which has been assaulted time and time again by people with inflated egos and little skill (such as yourself, as your website proves. Anyone who offers to work on WebTV can't be taken seriously), but has yet to be taken down. I have learned quite a bit about that honeypot, like 1. brainwashed *nix pundits have no idea how to hack Win32 machines, 2. *nix pundits like to try the same commands over and over and over, as if somehow persistence is going to change the undeniable outcome and 3. *nix pundits like to make generalized assumptions. Yours was obvious. Who ever said I have an account called Administrator on my domain?
Two days to secure a domain is actually not that bad, assuming you take your work seriously and value the quality of work you perform. But maybe you're right. Maybe I should give up the ability to admin 150,000+ workstations and servers via GPO and a single workstation and opt for doing things one machine at a time, which is the reality in the *nix world. Even with scripting, you're still going to spend much more time administering that many machines than I will. Or maybe I could just replace all the nonessential machines with WebTV units and call it a day =]
As an MCSA and Active Directory / Exchange admin, I found this author's story just that- A story. He's obviously coming from a position of not knowing anything about Win32 administration, and it was obvious to me he's yet another one of the Lin32 pundits who really doesn't know anything about Win32 networks except what he's heard in the press. Keep in mind that if Lin32 ever gets as big as Microsoft as far as desktop percentages, it will also face the same issues with point and click virus creation tools and the like.On my last assignment I spent a total of 2 days disabling services and other undesirable components of the AD domain I designed. An external security company spent over a weeek trying to break in. Not only did we maintain a 99.9% uptime, but they never did break in. So you see, Win32 networks can be secure and stable, just as Lin32 networks can be insecure and unstable. It really has nothing to do with the OS per se, but rathar the person behind the keyboard. As this author is obviously ignorant to the facets of Win32 administration, I have to wonder how secure and stable his Win32 domain would be, should he ever find himself in such a position.
Is but an attitude shift away. All you have to do is follow Hotmail's idea of an exclusive address list. Nothing comes through for any individual user except what's from addresses in that user's personal address list. Keep the filtering feature on the client side, so all the mail server does is essentially route mail traffic, like any router should. Keep the processing load on the client. If the users want an email from a certain source, they're going to have to add the address in manually. A little unique cert generation during the initial mail client configuration, and you keep the email shotguns at bay. If someone has to reinstall their Operating System and thus has to regenerate a cert, set up an easy way for the 2 parties to re-exchange certs. Maybe utilize a website for this feature. Like public PKI... There's no reason not to do it this way with most new desktops approaching the 3 Ghz range. The users are going to have to take a proactive stance to spam, bottom line. No matter what legislation you push through, spammers will always find a way around any defenses we put up. Those who are aware of the nature of TCP/IP and programming know that whatever you implement, someone else can break. It would be trivial to force the end user to take control of their lack of spam, and thus break that particularly annoying 'feature' of open standards.
Actually, I do admin several Exchange boxes, and I fail to see any relevance in your statements. The reality is that Exchange is still the best way to go if you are a company intent on seamless communication and colaboration. My point was that, if the OSS community wants an 'apples to apples' product, they'll need to expend roughly the same amount of time, money and personnel on the project that Microsoft spent on theirs. Personally, I go with what works and could really care less about choosing which is a 'better' platform, as every platform I've ever worked on (Win32, Solaris, AS400, FreeBSD, Linux, Tried-and-True Unix, etc) has had it's benefits and weaknesses. Like any good carpenter, I use the correct tool for the job, and regardless of what my personal feelings may be towards any particular platform, the only opinion that really counts comes from the people using it on a day to day basis. These are the types of people that Microsoft targets in their releases, and until the OSS community stops catering to the tech-savvy types, the only people that will adopt OSS will be the... tech-savvy types.
I think what most people forget is that in order to replicate Exchange's functionality, or even come close to offering a fraction of the features of Exchange, you're going to need to put in close to the same amount of work that Microsoft did. If I remember correctly, Microsoft had a team of no less than a hundred programmers working full-time for two years to produce Exchange server 2000. Logic would dictate that the Open Source community would need to do the same, with the same amount of resources. A considerable undertaking. I believe it would make more sense to enlist in a corporation like Red Hat (who doesn't have the same amount of resources as Microsoft, but they do have the talent and organization) to begin development on a project such as this.
For all of you who cringe at the thought of being monitored while driving, consider this: The moment you choose to edge your vehicle beyond the posted speed limit (i.e. excessive speed), you have forfeited your rights to privacy. What most people forget is that with great freedom comes great responsibility. Unfortunately, a great many people will immediately raise their voices the second they perceive their 'rights' to privacy being violated, but think nothing of buying the biggest SUV on the lot with a steel reinforced front end (in other words, a rolling, suburbanized, death dealing street legal tank). It's called intelligent decision making here, folks. If you don't want to get caught speeding, don't speed. I don't think it says anywhere in the Constitution that you can choose to place other people's lives in jeopardy and still have rights. Your rights end where others begin, plain and simple.
Hey, think of it this way. If you can't get off your ass and walk around your own building with a wireless kit, you probably don't care too much about security in the first place.
I mean, they still come with Q-Basic, afterall. That's a programming language. And, it's trivial to get Windows scripting host of Visual Basic scripting running on most Windows installations for free.
We can thank the current army of paper MCSEs on the dot-com bubble. Fortunately for the dedicated hardcore techies, they're all disappearing as fast as the venture capital has.
As a CIS major and self proclaimed UberGeek, I can always tell in my classes which students are there for the allure of money and which ones are there for the love of the machine. I've noticed a new trend this semester in that it seems that the hardcore techies have finally outnumbered the business-majors-turned-CIS-majors. Personally, I think this is great because it means the teachers can stop wasting their time with the money hounds and start focusing on those of us who are in it because we love what we do. Heh, maybe we'll give India a run for their money after all!
Slashdot Mirror
Hrm, xl would likely make it a 3com of some sort. I've had the same issues with the panic/reboot under heavy load on 4.8 as well. None of the 4.9RCs have had this issues as of yet. Happy happy joy joy!
"rethinking the standards of the community"... Usually right before I got my final paycheck :P
Will be an increase in ratings for the scifi channel. It will be interesting to see how they fare against our Government in this
As is my Exchange Messenger client 4.7. All I get is an error about an unsupported protocol.
Wow. That's a lot to think about. I don't agree with you about where to place blame for mishaps (Microsoft or end users), but from what I've seen so far about Palladium and other new technologies coming forth, it does seem possible that this is the direction Microsoft has chosen. Given the free nature of the Interweb, I wonder if they'll even come close to achieving this goal, should they choose to pursue it. It may not be technically possible for one company to control that much. If we can't even get rid of spam, I honestly doubt any one company could position themselves as a "utility".
Let me give you a hypothetical situation: You buy a brand new car. After owning the car for a few months the manufacturer discovers a flaw in the security system that causes the car to arbitrarily become unlocked and the engine to start. The manufacturer putzes around with this knowledge for a few months and eventually releases a recall notice on their website offering a free repair. Being an average driver with no real inclination to ever ascend to the elite "power driver" status, you never check the website because you are either unaware of it or simply don't care because you're more concerned with driving the car as opposed to maintaining it. Isn't that what you pay mechanics for? One day while you are out doing some bland, mundane task the vulnerability kicks in and unlocks and starts your car while it's parked in the parking lot of some retail outlet. Someone walking by takes advantage of the situation and steals your car. Would you want to take the blame for this? Average users con't give a shit about security or anything else. They just want to use their computers.
I won't mind as long as you don't mind when I start firing when you try to steal my computer, beat my family members or attempt to pick my pockets =]
Personally, I'm glad this sort of thing is happening. If it didn't, it would mean Microsoft was highly secure and it would not be possible for one to hijack their operating system so easily. Because of security issues such as this, Microsoft is making the inevitable exodus from their platform that much easier. I pray for more issues such as this. The more we have, the sooner Microsoft will fade from the scene.
Actually, I thought they did. In all the big press cases in the last couple of years a patch has always been available for quite some time before the exploit became public. Think Code Red, Slammer, Blaster, etc. Microsoft does keep it's code pretty solid and secure. Unfortunately there are a lot of paper MCSEs and other unqualified people proclaiming to be administrators out there who wouldn't know how to secure a system if BillG was standing in the room with them telling them how to do it. Microsoft gets a bad rap because of this, but I think there will come a time when all of the OSS communities' huffing and puffing about how insecure MS is and how secure their distro of UberNix 12.x is will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. Business Development departments do pay attention to this sort of stuff, and if they ever get the sense that MS and *nix are pretty much on even ground (which they are. I've played with both for years and I can't really see any differences) They'll opt for MS every time because it's familiar and proven. All bias remarks aside, it really is.
I know... I'm hoping that my skills with other platforms saves me. Heheh, at least I don't know anything about WebTV like the troll above!
Hmm... The only Windows box I have directly attached to the Interweb is a honeypot, which has been assaulted time and time again by people with inflated egos and little skill (such as yourself, as your website proves. Anyone who offers to work on WebTV can't be taken seriously), but has yet to be taken down. I have learned quite a bit about that honeypot, like 1. brainwashed *nix pundits have no idea how to hack Win32 machines, 2. *nix pundits like to try the same commands over and over and over, as if somehow persistence is going to change the undeniable outcome and 3. *nix pundits like to make generalized assumptions. Yours was obvious. Who ever said I have an account called Administrator on my domain? Two days to secure a domain is actually not that bad, assuming you take your work seriously and value the quality of work you perform. But maybe you're right. Maybe I should give up the ability to admin 150,000+ workstations and servers via GPO and a single workstation and opt for doing things one machine at a time, which is the reality in the *nix world. Even with scripting, you're still going to spend much more time administering that many machines than I will. Or maybe I could just replace all the nonessential machines with WebTV units and call it a day =]
As an MCSA and Active Directory / Exchange admin, I found this author's story just that- A story. He's obviously coming from a position of not knowing anything about Win32 administration, and it was obvious to me he's yet another one of the Lin32 pundits who really doesn't know anything about Win32 networks except what he's heard in the press. Keep in mind that if Lin32 ever gets as big as Microsoft as far as desktop percentages, it will also face the same issues with point and click virus creation tools and the like.On my last assignment I spent a total of 2 days disabling services and other undesirable components of the AD domain I designed. An external security company spent over a weeek trying to break in. Not only did we maintain a 99.9% uptime, but they never did break in. So you see, Win32 networks can be secure and stable, just as Lin32 networks can be insecure and unstable. It really has nothing to do with the OS per se, but rathar the person behind the keyboard. As this author is obviously ignorant to the facets of Win32 administration, I have to wonder how secure and stable his Win32 domain would be, should he ever find himself in such a position.
More like a 20 million dollar RC car, from the looks of the photo.
Is but an attitude shift away. All you have to do is follow Hotmail's idea of an exclusive address list. Nothing comes through for any individual user except what's from addresses in that user's personal address list. Keep the filtering feature on the client side, so all the mail server does is essentially route mail traffic, like any router should. Keep the processing load on the client. If the users want an email from a certain source, they're going to have to add the address in manually. A little unique cert generation during the initial mail client configuration, and you keep the email shotguns at bay. If someone has to reinstall their Operating System and thus has to regenerate a cert, set up an easy way for the 2 parties to re-exchange certs. Maybe utilize a website for this feature. Like public PKI... There's no reason not to do it this way with most new desktops approaching the 3 Ghz range. The users are going to have to take a proactive stance to spam, bottom line. No matter what legislation you push through, spammers will always find a way around any defenses we put up. Those who are aware of the nature of TCP/IP and programming know that whatever you implement, someone else can break. It would be trivial to force the end user to take control of their lack of spam, and thus break that particularly annoying 'feature' of open standards.
I would sure like to see Linus come up with an Exchange lookalike all by himself.
Actually, I do admin several Exchange boxes, and I fail to see any relevance in your statements. The reality is that Exchange is still the best way to go if you are a company intent on seamless communication and colaboration. My point was that, if the OSS community wants an 'apples to apples' product, they'll need to expend roughly the same amount of time, money and personnel on the project that Microsoft spent on theirs. Personally, I go with what works and could really care less about choosing which is a 'better' platform, as every platform I've ever worked on (Win32, Solaris, AS400, FreeBSD, Linux, Tried-and-True Unix, etc) has had it's benefits and weaknesses. Like any good carpenter, I use the correct tool for the job, and regardless of what my personal feelings may be towards any particular platform, the only opinion that really counts comes from the people using it on a day to day basis. These are the types of people that Microsoft targets in their releases, and until the OSS community stops catering to the tech-savvy types, the only people that will adopt OSS will be the... tech-savvy types.
I think what most people forget is that in order to replicate Exchange's functionality, or even come close to offering a fraction of the features of Exchange, you're going to need to put in close to the same amount of work that Microsoft did. If I remember correctly, Microsoft had a team of no less than a hundred programmers working full-time for two years to produce Exchange server 2000. Logic would dictate that the Open Source community would need to do the same, with the same amount of resources. A considerable undertaking. I believe it would make more sense to enlist in a corporation like Red Hat (who doesn't have the same amount of resources as Microsoft, but they do have the talent and organization) to begin development on a project such as this.
Maybe they're paying that admin what he's worth now! --Sigless and clueless
For all of you who cringe at the thought of being monitored while driving, consider this: The moment you choose to edge your vehicle beyond the posted speed limit (i.e. excessive speed), you have forfeited your rights to privacy. What most people forget is that with great freedom comes great responsibility. Unfortunately, a great many people will immediately raise their voices the second they perceive their 'rights' to privacy being violated, but think nothing of buying the biggest SUV on the lot with a steel reinforced front end (in other words, a rolling, suburbanized, death dealing street legal tank). It's called intelligent decision making here, folks. If you don't want to get caught speeding, don't speed. I don't think it says anywhere in the Constitution that you can choose to place other people's lives in jeopardy and still have rights. Your rights end where others begin, plain and simple.
Hey, think of it this way. If you can't get off your ass and walk around your own building with a wireless kit, you probably don't care too much about security in the first place.
I mean, they still come with Q-Basic, afterall. That's a programming language. And, it's trivial to get Windows scripting host of Visual Basic scripting running on most Windows installations for free.
GPF right out of the gate. Of course, it could have something to do with this POS Vaio laptop... Anyway, make mine 4.8 for now =]
There WILL be a limit to how much spam they can send us!
We can thank the current army of paper MCSEs on the dot-com bubble. Fortunately for the dedicated hardcore techies, they're all disappearing as fast as the venture capital has. As a CIS major and self proclaimed UberGeek, I can always tell in my classes which students are there for the allure of money and which ones are there for the love of the machine. I've noticed a new trend this semester in that it seems that the hardcore techies have finally outnumbered the business-majors-turned-CIS-majors. Personally, I think this is great because it means the teachers can stop wasting their time with the money hounds and start focusing on those of us who are in it because we love what we do. Heh, maybe we'll give India a run for their money after all!
will have 802.11* built in