Well, then they shouldn't say "nowhere near half the performance". I didn't bother to look at the graphs again, but it seems they didn't take a good look either. And I can't imagine they'd be more tired than you.:-P
Comparing the two top mainstream dual-core parts, the Pentium D is priced at almost half the 4800+. Seeing that the Pentium D 840 is no where near half the performance, it makes the Pentium D dollar-for-dollar, a better deal.
Shouldn't that be the AMD is better dollar for dollar? The Pentium is priced a little more than half the AMD, but it doesn't give even half the performance. Sounds more like if you want to brag about having a dual core, but can't pay for a decent chip, buy the Pentium D.
Locking down users might just be much more difficult than denying everything but allowed traffic through a firewall. Unless your users only run software that can be run as a user (talking about MS of course) you'll have a hell of a time getting every bit of (legitimate) software running in user mode (and "runas" is not an option). I manage pretty secure terminal servers, but we still keep them nice and safe behind a proxy and a firewall.
Why is slahdot.org asking my webserver for "GET http://it.slashdot.org/ok.txt HTTP/1.0"? *tinfoil hat* Trying to compile a list of relaying http servers?
Not only that, the firewall I use doesn't only do NAT for the machines inside, but it seperates my network into the regular internal network, DMZ, and the wireless network, making sure traffic like http, smtp, ftp goes from the outside to the right server inside, but also keeps unwanted traffic going from one internal network to the other. If you only have one public ip address but more than one (virtual) server, you need a firewall or router.
I think this is better. Let those that are afraid to switch to Linux hear from their own colleagues how well it works, and see how little they're affected by spyware and virusses. Then they'll switch voluntarily and have no reason to start complaining about how they're forced to give up windows.
And that's the people they're aiming for right now (despite the claim to rival Dreamweaver). I use it because I only need simple pages without any scripting behind it. I believe as soon as they've got the whole "plain" html and css done they'll extend nvu with support for scripting languages. After all, you don't want to start by trying to do everything at once.
Ah, interesting. I havent looked into that aspect of AD myself, but I believe they decided to use Landesk instead of AD because of some things, including the way it installs software.
You can't create the kind of packages with AD as you can with Landesk. AD is more for giving you a list of possible software to install, it still uses the regular way of installing software by running the installer. Landesk can push files and registry settings without running any installer.
Problem with a passive scanner is that it would only find a virus after the pc has been infected and spreading the trojan/worm all over the place. Especially with worms that spread themselves through open ports you need an active scanner to prevent it from creating a file on the system in the first place.
We mostly use 7.6 and 8.0 at work and should upgrade, but after reading this I think we'll stick to 9.0. It might be an idea to create a package of the client for deployment with something like Intel Landesk (don't know any other software deployment systems off the top of my head), or build your own package by using a tool to record all changes to a system while installing the client, apply the fixes, then build something that will copy all needed files and registry settings to the other clients. It seems to me that most virusscanners have been slowing down systems more and more over the years. In a few more Windows users will definitely need multicore cpu's just to keep the system usable.
I see some thing that are wrong in my opinion. First off, Windows is something that is being developed by numerous people who work full-time on it, Linux has/is being build mostly by people in their spare time so the amount of man hours is way less than that of Windows. Second, Linux is hardly based on a 30 year old OS. It may look like it, share some parts of it, but it was build from scratch and is changing faster into a modern OS than Windows does with its huge amount of backwards compatible parts. Even Longhorn won't drop as much compatibility as they first talked about. And what does it take for an OS to be modern? As long as an OS can take advantage of the latest hardware, run software in a stable and secure fashion it does what it is supposed to do, whether you want to call it ancient or modern. I myself prefer to use FreeBSD. Yes, one of the oldest Unix derivatives, but so far I haven't felt as good cruising the information highway in this vehicle as in any other ones.
You remind me of (Joe Schmoe) Windows users. They don't care whether IE, Outlook and the OS is secure or not. Just so long as they can get on the internet and send their mail. The more messy the code, the bigger the chance of an exploit, and that's exactly what Theo (and other devs of *BSD) want(s) to avoid.
He has commented on how messy the code's supposed to be (read also the comment on the bottom of TFA), therefore he doesn't have to run it to have an opinion of it.
Well, after reading this, and the "lenghty" answers he gave to some earlier interview (too lazy to look up the link here), he seems more to me someone who'd rather not give any opinion or get into any discussion at all. A bit like "I do Linux, now go away, you're bothering me."
Slashdot Mirror
He just didn't want to fork over the $699 for a Linux license if Darl saw the header.
Well, you know about Murphy and his law... You're welcome. :-)
You mean the Baen Free Library.
Well, then they shouldn't say "nowhere near half the performance". I didn't bother to look at the graphs again, but it seems they didn't take a good look either. And I can't imagine they'd be more tired than you. :-P
Comparing the two top mainstream dual-core parts, the Pentium D is priced at almost half the 4800+. Seeing that the Pentium D 840 is no where near half the performance, it makes the Pentium D dollar-for-dollar, a better deal.
Shouldn't that be the AMD is better dollar for dollar? The Pentium is priced a little more than half the AMD, but it doesn't give even half the performance. Sounds more like if you want to brag about having a dual core, but can't pay for a decent chip, buy the Pentium D.
Ah, thanks.
Silly thing to do though, I use a proxy, but it's not running on port 80 of course.
Locking down users might just be much more difficult than denying everything but allowed traffic through a firewall.
Unless your users only run software that can be run as a user (talking about MS of course) you'll have a hell of a time getting every bit of (legitimate) software running in user mode (and "runas" is not an option).
I manage pretty secure terminal servers, but we still keep them nice and safe behind a proxy and a firewall.
Why is slahdot.org asking my webserver for "GET http://it.slashdot.org/ok.txt HTTP/1.0"? *tinfoil hat* Trying to compile a list of relaying http servers?
Not only that, the firewall I use doesn't only do NAT for the machines inside, but it seperates my network into the regular internal network, DMZ, and the wireless network, making sure traffic like http, smtp, ftp goes from the outside to the right server inside, but also keeps unwanted traffic going from one internal network to the other.
If you only have one public ip address but more than one (virtual) server, you need a firewall or router.
I think this is better. Let those that are afraid to switch to Linux hear from their own colleagues how well it works, and see how little they're affected by spyware and virusses. Then they'll switch voluntarily and have no reason to start complaining about how they're forced to give up windows.
\(O_O)/
:-P
Looks more like a druggie getting arrested.
And that's the people they're aiming for right now (despite the claim to rival Dreamweaver). I use it because I only need simple pages without any scripting behind it. I believe as soon as they've got the whole "plain" html and css done they'll extend nvu with support for scripting languages. After all, you don't want to start by trying to do everything at once.
Maybe the developers of Eclipse got jealous about the QT story getting on top of the developers page so thay paid to get another article here? :-P
FreeBSD in third place. So who is dead now? :-P
Ah, interesting. I havent looked into that aspect of AD myself, but I believe they decided to use Landesk instead of AD because of some things, including the way it installs software.
You can't create the kind of packages with AD as you can with Landesk. AD is more for giving you a list of possible software to install, it still uses the regular way of installing software by running the installer. Landesk can push files and registry settings without running any installer.
Problem with a passive scanner is that it would only find a virus after the pc has been infected and spreading the trojan/worm all over the place.
Especially with worms that spread themselves through open ports you need an active scanner to prevent it from creating a file on the system in the first place.
We mostly use 7.6 and 8.0 at work and should upgrade, but after reading this I think we'll stick to 9.0.
It might be an idea to create a package of the client for deployment with something like Intel Landesk (don't know any other software deployment systems off the top of my head), or build your own package by using a tool to record all changes to a system while installing the client, apply the fixes, then build something that will copy all needed files and registry settings to the other clients.
It seems to me that most virusscanners have been slowing down systems more and more over the years. In a few more Windows users will definitely need multicore cpu's just to keep the system usable.
I see some thing that are wrong in my opinion.
First off, Windows is something that is being developed by numerous people who work full-time on it, Linux has/is being build mostly by people in their spare time so the amount of man hours is way less than that of Windows.
Second, Linux is hardly based on a 30 year old OS. It may look like it, share some parts of it, but it was build from scratch and is changing faster into a modern OS than Windows does with its huge amount of backwards compatible parts. Even Longhorn won't drop as much compatibility as they first talked about.
And what does it take for an OS to be modern? As long as an OS can take advantage of the latest hardware, run software in a stable and secure fashion it does what it is supposed to do, whether you want to call it ancient or modern. I myself prefer to use FreeBSD. Yes, one of the oldest Unix derivatives, but so far I haven't felt as good cruising the information highway in this vehicle as in any other ones.
You remind me of (Joe Schmoe) Windows users. They don't care whether IE, Outlook and the OS is secure or not. Just so long as they can get on the internet and send their mail.
The more messy the code, the bigger the chance of an exploit, and that's exactly what Theo (and other devs of *BSD) want(s) to avoid.
He has commented on how messy the code's supposed to be (read also the comment on the bottom of TFA), therefore he doesn't have to run it to have an opinion of it.
Well, after reading this, and the "lenghty" answers he gave to some earlier interview (too lazy to look up the link here), he seems more to me someone who'd rather not give any opinion or get into any discussion at all. A bit like "I do Linux, now go away, you're bothering me."
Except, you're talking about the USA.
*ducks*
You're hurting my head! *stuffs my ears with pillows*
Not to mention explaining why it's better to run OS X instead of FreeBSD+KDE.